As the day approaches when the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) enters its second term, it is becoming increasingly evident that Ma has been very lucky that Taiwanese have been both very patient and apathetic about his dangerous flirting with Beijing.
This might be about to change, as the disconnect between public expectations on relations with China and the policy direction in which the Ma administration appears to be engaging grows wider.
How out of sync Ma’s China policy is with public opinion became starker last week when, ostensibly with the president’s blessing, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) — an unelected non-official, we must not forget — on a visit to Beijing delivered to Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) what can only be described as a blueprint for the future of cross-strait relations. That plan reflects far better Beijing’s position on Taiwan and on “one China” than it does the views of the public that voted for Ma and the KMT on Jan. 14.
Facing a strong reaction to the proposal, the KMT shot back by saying the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was distorting the language contained in the Constitution to score political points.
While the Presidential Office accused the DPP of manipulating the issue of “one country, two areas” in a poll, it failed to address another poll — this one by TVBS, hardly a bastion of pro-independence or pan-green sentiment — which showed growing dissatisfaction with Ma’s handling of cross-strait affairs. Unless TVBS is running for office in 2016, the Ma government has a far more serious problem on its hands than the manipulation of polls by mischievous DPP officials.
The numbers provided in the TVBS poll should make any responsible government official sit up at night trying to figure out what is wrong with cross-strait policy. The poll shows that the disapproval rate on Ma’s cross-strait policy now stands at 55 percent, against 27 percent who approve, while the percentage of Taiwanese who lack confidence that the Ma administration would defend Taiwan’s interests in cross-strait economic agreements rose to 57 percent, versus 34 percent who are confident.
On whether Ma’s cross-strait policies are seen as increasingly tilting toward China, 59 percent said “yes,” versus 31 percent who said “no.” Meanwhile, the figures for identification as Taiwanese and support for independence continued their upward trend against those who identify themselves as Chinese or who support unification.
Given the pressure that the Ma administration is expected to receive from Beijing in the coming months, disapproval of Ma’s cross-strait policies will very likely continue to grow. However, what remains to be seen is whether this dissatisfaction will translate into opposition to those policies that is substantial enough to force Ma to correct his course.
In the past four years, even as Taiwan under Ma’s guidance has drifted toward China, public opposition has been meek and unimaginative at best, which has allowed the Ma administration to ignore the sporadic public protests and continue with its plans unchanged.
As the threat becomes more distinct and gets closer to home, there will be a point where abstract fears become reality. Let us hope for Taiwan’s sake that this moment of reckoning occurs early enough to avoid a point of no return.
Acknowledging the threat alone will be insufficient: If the Ma government is to be accountable to the public, and if Beijing is to realize that Taiwanese will not brook the dismemberment of their freedoms, Taiwanese of all stripes, regardless of their political affiliation, will have to unite and truly make their voices heard and their anger felt.
If they fail to do so, Taiwan as we know it today will not go out with a bang, but a whimper.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS