Who really rules Taiwan?
The impact of the cross-strait service trade pact is boiling over from Taiwan and sweeping across the world. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) played his old trick by first sending former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to meet Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平) on June 13, then dispatching Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Lin Join-sane (林中森) to sign the trade agreement without any prior or subsequent consultation with legislators.
Ma totally ignored the democratic system of government. He manipulates the Republic of China (ROC) exiled government as a one-party KMT game. Wu is a KMT member, not a government official, so how can he represent Taiwanese in negotiations with China? Then, Lin signed the agreement without any authorization from legislators.
Ma always plays this fait accompli trick, as previously seen when he jailed his predecessor, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), looking for the allegations and incriminating evidence only afterward.
Ma’s repeated trickery has finally led people to see through him and see that his hands are dirty. He should be ashamed.
However, his deceptiveness is not a shock to the world: On Nov. 24 last year, the The Economist exposed him as “Ma the bumbler.” Yet the word “bumbler” does not seem to adequately reflect what Ma has done. Yes, as a WTO member, Taiwan needs to open its economy to the world for fair competition, but the problem is that Ma went about this without holding any domestic communication.
He acts like a king who can do whatever he wants, however he wants. Having completely sidelined the checks and balances of the democratic system, “dominator” would seem a more appropriate word to describe him.
Ma exaggeratedly professes to the public that he is the president of the ROC, which has sovereignty over China and Taiwan. However, when he met a low-level Chinese official, Ma told the official to address him as “sir,” but the Beijing official only addressed him as “you.” Obviously, the Chinese do not think Ma has a legal right to China.
Does he have a right to Taiwan? Does Ma, or his ROC government-in-exile, have sovereignty over Taiwan? The answer is no, neither Ma nor the ROC government owns Taiwan.
Maybe someone will raise the question that if neither Ma nor the ROC government have sovereignty over the nation, how does he have the authority to dispatch someone to sign the service pact? Is the agreement even binding?
The answer, again, is no, because the ROC government is not the legitimate ruler of Taiwan. The agreement is only valid and binding between the ROC and China, not Taiwan and China, for there is no legal document or international treaty which shows that Japan transferred control of Taiwan to the ROC government. Nor is there any record showing that Taiwan was ever incorporated into the ROC’s territory.
In 1949, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) defeated Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and established the People’s Republic of China, forcing Chiang to flee to Taiwan and the ROC became an exiled government.
Under the service agreement, the ROC government is only a governing authority of Taiwan.
Yes, it has the power to sign a treaty or agreement on the economy, but the validation of such a pact is subject to the people’s and their representative’s ratification.
Maybe it is time for Taiwanese to resolve the question of the ROC government being the governing authority of their nation. Why is Taiwan’s government not for Taiwan?
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and