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
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