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.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS