President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) raised concerns when he said the idea of Taiwan and China functioning as separate governments within a “one China” framework could be up for discussion. The Presidential Office quickly clarified that what he meant was that the idea should be discussed on an academic level, not in cross-strait negotiations anytime soon. That did little to ameliorate the concerns of critics, and rightly so.
Ma’s statements, even as bland as they are, cause concern because he suffers from a credibility gap that no amount of platitudes or photo opportunities can bridge. It is a gap that keeps growing. To be fair, however, it is not a gap that is his alone; he shares it with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
His “separate governments in a ‘one China’ framework” comment raised hackles because of the dense fog that has surrounded cross-strait negotiations since Ma took office, with the accompanying lack of legislative oversight of the talks and the use of “semi-official” bodies to give his government credit when he wants it, and plausible denial when he needs it.
All those KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lovefests have not helped either, given the pronouncements that have emanated from them. Honorary chairmen and other KMT members appear to have forgotten that they live in a multi-party nation, not the one-party state they grew up in or the single-party China they apparently aspire to. There are clear indications that much of the cross-strait agenda is dictated by Beijing, with input from Taipei.
Ma wants to take credit for inspiring more academics to think about cross-strait issues, but the problem is he only appears interested in what Chinese academics or those in his own chorus line have to say. He has either turned a deaf ear to those who have queried any of his policies or — in the case of an open letter from 34 academics and other experts about the probe into “missing official documents” from former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) era — had his aides brush aside the concerns on the grounds that the signatories were foreigners who really did not (ie, could not) understand Taiwan-China relations or were interfering in Taiwan’s judicial affairs, thereby impinging upon its sovereignty.
It is the same credibility gap that made his posing in the cockpit of an upgraded Indigenous Defence Fighter (IDF) on Thursday look ridiculous. The revamping of the IDFs’ avionics and flight control systems cannot make up for the air force’s limited number of fighter jets and the overall reduced capabilities of the military — not when compared with the rapidly modernizing People’s Liberation Army.
The shameful lack of military readiness cannot be laid solely on Ma’s concessionary “make talk, not war” mindset, but the blame can and should be put squarely on the KMT’s shoulders. It was unwilling to vote for any major defense packages during the eight years Chen was in office, simply as part of its efforts to kill any legislation that might be seen as giving Chen’s administration an advantage, regardless of whether the nation needed it or not.
In poll after poll, a vast majority of Taiwanese have said no to Beijing’s “one country, two systems” principle in any way, shape or form. Despite China’s economic blandishments, they are satisfied with the “status quo.” And why not, when Beijing’s repressive government and the escalating number of ecological disasters make the vaunted “economic miracle” along China’s east coast look more like a Potomkin village with each passing year — and each successive anti-graft drive in the CCP.
That brings up the final plank in Ma’s credibility gap. Despite repeated pledges, he has been unable to reform the KMT or Taiwan’s “black gold” politics. His administration’s only real “success” in its anti-graft efforts has been the jailing of Chen — and the indictment of former president, and the KMT’s other archnemesis, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Please mind the gaps.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS