President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has touted consistency as one of his guiding principles in governance, even though he has time and again shown inconsistency in his commitments to the nation. Except, however, when it comes to the manner in which his administration deals with the public when conducting cross-strait negotiations — the government has been consistent in shunning public oversight by continually choosing to hold cross-strait negotiations behind closed doors.
Taiwan and China on Wednesday began the ninth round of talks on a trade in goods agreement. Likely due to concerns over protests, the government has kept the talks secret by refusing to disclose the location of the three-day meeting.
However, this tactic of playing “hide-and-seek” with the public serves only to trigger a fiercer backlash while further eroding public trust and confidence in the government.
One would have thought the student-led Sunflower movement’s three-week-long occupation of the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber in protest of the government’s non-transparent handling of the cross-strait service trade agreement in March would be enough of a lesson for the Ma administration to better heed democratic principles when conducting cross-strait talks.
One would also have thought that the March 30 protest, which saw more than 500,000 people take to the streets of Taipei in a show of solidarity with and support for the Sunflower movement, would make the government understand the popular sentiment for transparency and citizen participation.
In the wake of the Sunflower movement, Ma himself said that he would engage in some soul-searching to better understand how to react to the public.
Apparently Ma has more soul-searching to do, as the government’s secrecy surrounding the latest cross-strait talks suggests he continues to lack sincerity and respect, and harbors an inability to respond to public concerns over secretive cross-strait negotiations.
The way the Ma administration signed the cross-strait service trade agreement with China without first discussing it with the legislature has seriously undermined the values of democracy.
In light of these actions, which caused such fierce controversy, and with the government still unable to dispel public doubts, it is dumbfounding that the government is already in such a hurry to conduct talks with China over a trade in goods agreement.
All cross-strait talks should be halted until the legislature has passed a law to monitor cross-strait negotiations. Not to mention that the government is still embroiled in the case concerning former Mainland Affairs Council deputy minister Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀), who is accused of leaking state secrets during his time at the council and as vice chairman and secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Chang handled the signing of the various cross-strait agreements, including the cross-strait service trade agreement. If Chang did overreach his authority during the negotiations, as the Ma administration alleged, then the result of those negotiations, including the service trade pact, should be considered invalid.
The murkiness surrounding the Chang case and the lack of a mechanism to monitor cross-strait deals have confounded the public’s lack of confidence in the government’s ability to conduct cross-strait talks in a manner that prioritizes domestic industries and protects national interests.
In short, it is downright despicable for the Ma administration to employ underhand tactics in dealing with matters of such grave concern to the public and the nation as a whole.
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