Lately, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been criticized if fuel prices go up, and if they go down. As Ma explains it, he was right when he decided to hike the prices and he was also right to subsequently cut them, so he feels he really does not deserve the criticism.
People who want to stand up for Ma say the price changes were necessary because of fluctuations in international oil prices. They say that while Ma may be a bit more stupid and a bit more incompetent than other leaders, he is honest, and so should not be criticized too harshly.
Is this really how things are? Ma has indeed been criticized because of his incompetence, but it is also because he comes up with a lot of lofty and grandiloquent explanations for raising prices, and when he then cuts them, he is again absolutely convinced that he is right.
This is a cheap play for popularity. Let us examine the bombastic and pompous statements Ma and his team have used over the past four years.
When elected in 2008, Ma immediately announced an increase in fuel prices, while also strongly criticizing former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, saying it had manipulated fuel prices for electoral purposes. Ma’s administration managed to say this with a straight face. Then, before the five special municipality elections and from December 2010 up to this year’s presidential election, the Ma administration turned around and cut fuel price increases in half. Ma’s government presented a magnificent reason for doing this: It said it was because it empathized with the people and that it had nothing to do with the upcoming elections. It was impressive to see how the administration pulled it all off — all costs were absorbed by CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC).
After Ma won the election and secured the presidency for another four years, he turned around and said that fuel prices would once again have to be determined by the market, calling it “reform” and saying that reform hurts.
He said that if consumers did not take that hit now, it would hurt even more in the future and also said it was unfair to use taxpayer money to subsidize fuel prices. What a sweet guy. Then Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) said that Taiwan’s 95-octane unleaded gasoline was some of the cheapest in the world. Two days after his re-inauguration, Ma said international fuel prices had increased for 15 months in a row.
They said all these things as if the price increases were the most natural thing in the world, and totally devoid of controversy.
When international fuel prices kept dropping, CPC had to drop their prices 10 times. This caused the public to question the government’s skill in predicting fuel prices. Ma said that trends in petroleum prices had also fooled many international experts, which shows how difficult they are to predict. There were still lots of justifications, though, and Ma said he was not responsible for the poor predictions and the initial decision to adjust prices in one big increase. Ma and his administration cited the price estimates made by Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs in March and April.
So after so many international experts began predicting that fuel prices would drop, why did the Ma government not listen? Why did the government first say it would implement a large, one-time increase in fuel prices to reflect the market, but then, when international oil prices fell, decide to cut prices by less than the amount that international prices had dropped?
In the end, CPC chairman Chu Shao-hua (朱少華) had to call a press conference and admit that the price hikes were intended to make up for the losses incurred when prices were frozen and that they had nothing to do with the increase in international fuel prices.
In spite of this contradicting everything the government had said up until that point, the government still feels it did the right thing — it had to save CPC from going bankrupt, and what could be more righteous than that? It is a huge sin when others freeze prices, but when the Ma administration does the same thing, it does so out of concern for the public. When the government decides to unfreeze prices, it calls it a “great reform.” Then it says the following 10 consecutive price cuts are necessary because the original price increase was the result of poor forecasts by international experts and that prices were cut by less than the drop in international prices to save CPC from bankruptcy.
Political strategy has been involved in every bit of manipulation of fuel prices and lies have been pouring out of the government’s mouth with the same ease with which a Confucian scholar would recite Confucius (孔子) and Mencius (孟子).
Everything the government has said has been contradictory and it has shown no fear of being caught out. Ma is not very competent, but he does want to retain the presidency and to be liked by the public. Now that his lies have been exposed, he maintains his sanctimonious attitude and refuses to apologize. Is it any wonder that the government is receiving the criticism it is in a modern, democratic society?
If we look back a few years, when former premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) said that fuel prices should not be manipulated for political gain and that the government should always do the right thing even if it means being criticized, we will see that his views stand in stark contrast to what has been happening recently.
Now that Ma is on the receiving end of so much criticism, perhaps he should heed those pearls of wisdom left behind by his much-loved and esteemed former premier.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS