President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) returned to Taiwan late on Tuesday night after making an unexpected visit to Singapore earlier in the day to pay tribute to the late Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀).
Given that Singapore does not have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it is understandable that the president wanted to keep his visit low-profile. However, to have the visit conducted in such a manner — to the point that almost everyone in the nation was kept in the dark that the president had gone overseas — and the fact that government officials called the trip “personal” in nature, did not change the universally known fact that Ma is the president of the Republic of China (ROC). In truth, the whole affair is sad and pathetic.
So much for Ma’s “flexible diplomacy” policy, which appears to have become a “private wake diplomacy.”
If, as Ma administration officials say, that “wherever the president goes, he is always the president,” and Ma’s own assertion upon arriving at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport on Tuesday night that “wherever I go, it is impossible for me to do it in a private capacity,” why then was the government so ambiguous in the first place with responses to the question of Ma’s capacity while making the trip?
Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote: “If you want to be respected by others, the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect, will you compel others to respect you.”
The truth is, Ma, after his so-called “low-profile” trip, has not only downgraded himself from the head of the ROC, he has failed again to uphold Taiwan’s dignity. Furthermore, he also allowed China to take advantage of the whole situation, as made evident by remarks by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Fan Liqing (范麗青), who urged Singapore to observe the “one China” principle when dealing with Taiwanese paying tributes to Lee Kuan Yew, since Lee had always upheld the “one China” policy himself.
China’s statement also came as another slap in the face of Ma and the so-called “1992 consensus.” Ma has constructed his entire cross-strait policy on this fabricated “1992 consensus” by insisting there is this supposed tacit understanding between the KMT and Beijing that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what China means.
The fact that Fan made it clear in the statement on Tuesday that China sees Ma as merely a “Taiwanese person” clearly indicates that China does not have the same interpretation as Ma — because such an interpretation would be tantamount to an acceptance of two Chinas, a situation that is completely unacceptable to Beijing.
An equally alarming notion resulting from Ma’s trip to Singapore is the fact that he has demonstrated to the Taiwanese public that he is capable of leaving the nation without letting the people know. Given the fact that Ma has several judicial cases pending against him, and that he is only currently protected under the umbrella of Article 52 of the Constitution — which stipulates that the president shall not be liable to criminal prosecution — many people cannot help but wonder whether Ma could, via the excuse of a “private trip,” abscond from Taiwan any time in a bid to evade judicial prosecution.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS