In a country that still has not been “normalized,” most government leaders act recklessly and do whatever they want, with a style all their own.
The year is about to end and looking back at President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) political performance during the year it is not difficult to draw conclusions about his personal leadership style. We can analyze the “myths” about Ma-style political performance based on the following aspects.
First, the failure to strengthen the constitutional system of the Republic of China (ROC).
Strictly speaking, the current system is a semi-presidential system, but Ma’s leadership is modelled on the leadership style of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), in that he concentrates all power in his own hands.
As the president has a lot of power, but lacks accountability, the decision-making process often becomes inefficient, causing public anger to grow across Taiwan.
Second, the unclear view of national identity.
What people find most difficult to understand about the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is why it does not shed its “greater China” ideology, which leads to a confused understanding of national identity, while it takes pride in its mistaken belief that the so-called “1992 consensus” on there being “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” is an example of creative ambiguity. Taiwan has sheltered this regime in exile and nurtured it like a mother, but the party still sees Taiwan as a burden or a stranger.
How to deal with the split national identity is a core issue in Ma’s political performance.
Third, the inability to safeguard national sovereignty. The national flag, anthem and passport are symbols of a country’s sovereignty and should be protected. It is also necessary to strengthen diplomatic relations. However, Beijing often oppresses Taipei at international events and hurts its autonomy.
Despite Ma’s proposal of a “diplomatic truce” to promote peace, Taiwan’s sovereignty continues to slip away and this loss might jeopardize national security. Ma’s wishful thinking that Beijing will offer some goodwill shows he has lost his direction.
Fourth, the interference of politicians in the judiciary, which is an embarrassment to its independence.
Some say courts are run by the KMT and it prosecutes more politicians from the pan-green camp than from the pan-blue camp for corruption. We all know that in a democracy, the independence of the judiciary is sacred and inviolable.
However, in the corruption cases against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), it seems the court has been cooking up charges by using all kinds of excuses. It is not providing the courteous treatment that a retired president should enjoy, and it treats Chen even worse than the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) treats dissidents.
Looking at the transfer of power from the communist regimes in Eastern Europe in the 1990s, with the exception of late Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, almost all former communist leaders received relatively courteous treatment.
In Chen’s case, Taiwan seems to emulate the way the Chinese communists treated dissidents in the 1950s and 1960s, completely disregarding judicial and human rights.
In addition to these flaws, Ma’s remaining issues are too numerous to count. If there really is such a thing as a “2012 consensus” here in Taiwan, then it might be that “we all call Ma a bumbler.”
That is yet another great chapter in the history of Ma’s rule.
Hung Mao-hsiung is an adviser to the Taiwan International Studies Association.
Translated By Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with