The Ministry of Economic Affairs’ evaluation on whether to apply for membership of China’s proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was dated — and released internally — on March 18, and it noted the lack of widespread public support for such a bid.
That was just two weeks before President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the National Security Council made the decision to submit a letter of intent on Monday, one day before the deadline set for applications to join the bank as a founding member.
Remarks made by some government officials, and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) dismissal of attempts to compare it with the cross-strait service trade agreement — implicitly intimating, ironically, the latter’s secretive character and the government’s operation in dealing with China-related affairs, supported unquestioningly by the KMT — has exposed why it has been unable to secure public trust.
The economics ministry might say it has been wrongly blamed, as the Ministry of Finance is the authority responsible for weighing up a bid, and said it initiated an evaluation in November last year and finished integrating reports from other ministries early last month. However, although Vice Minister of Finance Wu Tang-chieh (吳當傑) denied the process was “black-boxed” as the reports “could” all be made public, discussion of it — government-led or not — was rarely seen until last week.
On the lack of discussion, it is easy to fault Taiwanese for being overly introspective when it comes to international affairs, but the government should know better after last year’s Sunflower movement, especially about the contentiousness of China-related issues, and be responsible enough to include the public in the “evaluation” it claimed it has undergone or be more actively transparent.
The economics ministry made another misstep by refusing, and later denying its initial reluctance, to pass copies of its evaluation to reporters, which several financial journalists claimed to have received only after voicing complaints to an opposition lawmaker during a legislative committee meeting yesterday.
Long before the Sunflower movement, which was the culmination of long-running dissatisfaction with the KMT government, transparency is what the public has been constantly demanding with regards to negotiations with Beijing. It seems only fair to expect the government to be more sensitive to public misgiving about China-led agreements and institutions.
It turns out that the government and the KMT are as self-absorbed and obtuse as ever.
Executive Yuan spokesperson Sun Lih-chyun (孫立群), on a live show on Wednesday night, said that the AIIB bid is different from the handling of the service trade pact, which was “forced down the throats of the Taiwanese only after the negotiation was completed and the agreement signed.”
KMT caucus whip Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) similarly claimed that the AIIB bid was “very different from the service trade pact, the content of which was entirely obscure and not disclosed to us.”
Their remarks, in response to public anger about the behind-the-door negotiations for the service trade pact, are worthy of applause, but ignored the real complaint — which has always been a call for the government’s acknowledgment that the economy is never the only thing that Taiwan needs to take into account when dealing with China.
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Sept. 6 finished its annual national congress. However, if Taiwan wants to have a viable opposition party in its democracy, the results were far from satisfying. The KMT again seems to be caught in a time loop, like that one in the 1993 film Groundhog Day. Yet, unlike the protagonist in that film, the KMT seems unable to learn from past experience and change for the better. Instead, it remains locked in its never-ending cycle of repeating the past. To borrow from a different artistic genre, the KMT echoes Pete Seeger’s song Where Have All