“A head of state being heckled is not a big deal in a democratic society; there is no need to regard it as losing face.”
These were the words of then-Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in October 2006, spoken at the time of a campaign by red-clad protesters to oust then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party.
Fast-forward to Monday this week and Ma’s stance has changed noticeably now that he is the president and on the receiving end of people’s anger and discontent. Seeing his speech marking Human Rights Day at the Jingmei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park disturbed by protesters — one of whom also threw a shoe at Ma — Ma appeared annoyed and raised his voice as he lectured all those present, in his message on human rights, that “it is the attitude of tolerance and mutual respect that serves as the fundamental value in Taiwan’s human rights development.”
The shoe-throwing episode reminded many people of a similar incident involving then-US president George W. Bush in December 2008 at a news conference in Baghdad, Iraq. Many recalled how Bush took it in his stride, saying that the shoe thrown at him was “a size 10.”
Even Chen, in comparison with Ma, appeared to be more mature and demonstrated a level of graciousness and class befitting a president when he, in the face of people protesting and heckling him, stated that the ruckus was a sign of a healthy democracy in Taiwan that people should cherish and be proud of.
As the president whose ill-conceived policies and poor performance fueled recent public demonstrations of grievances and dissatisfaction, Ma should be more receptive to people’s criticism, rather than fighting the protesters’ decibels with more decibels, as was the case on Monday.
In his speech, Ma called for respect from the protesters. However, does he practice what he preaches and treat his people with the respect they are due? Recalling the numerous demonstrations held by members of the public these past months on issues such as fuel and electricity price increases, forced land seizures and deteriorating social insurance systems, to name just a few, how many were the times that all that the people got in response from Ma were the words “thank you”? Ma’s lecture about respect was anything but convincing, as the public has on many occasions witnessed how he fails to respect his people by treating their complaints in a perfunctory manner.
Ma also likes to pat himself on the back for having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, how can he say that his administration remains determined to protect human rights and to safeguard Taiwan’s democracy when many issues remain unresolved, such as the much-criticized judiciary system that lacks independence.
In case Ma needs a reminder, he said in his victory speech on March 22, 2008, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regained the key to the Presidential Office: “The KMT will be appreciative and humble. We’ll listen hard, care for people’s plights, and engage in policy reviews and introspection.”
Unless he keeps the meaning of “human rights” close to his heart, takes people’s plights seriously and takes concrete action to push reforms that would change people’s lives for the better, Ma remains unqualified to give a lecture on respect, let alone on human rights.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS