“President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is very sincere — sincere in telling lies, that is.” Such is a jape often used by critics to ridicule the president’s tendency to tell only half-truths, if not a whole lie.
However, joking aside, Ma never ceases to amaze Taiwanese with his brazenness, leaving many to wonder how he manages to tell bare-faced lies in public without turning red.
Ma was at it again this week during his meeting on Tuesday with American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt and in an interview published in the Wall Street Journal two days earlier, where he again touted the so-called “1992 consensus.”
He said that in the seven years he has been president, he has abided by the “1992 consensus” as the basis for maintaining the peaceful “status quo” between Taiwan and China, adding that the public should understand that “the 1992 consensus is actually the best model to defend the sovereignty of the Republic of China and the dignity of Taiwan.”
Ma’s remarks immediately raise the question: Who is Ma to decide what is best for Taiwan? Granted, he is the president, but that does not give him the right to unilaterally decide the nation’s future, especially since his approval rating has dipped to just 9.2 percent.
Just because he believes that the “1992 consensus” is good for the nation does not mean it is necessarily so, even without acknowledging that China’s understanding of the “consensus” differs from what Ma has been telling the public it refers to — a supposed tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Beijing that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
Take the recent joint statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko as an example. It states that Belarus recognizes that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China, the only legitimate government representing all of China, and so it would not have official contacts with Taiwan, would not sell weapons to Taiwan and would support any Chinese endeavors to realize unification.
If the “1992 consensus” really existed, why has Ma not stood up and rejected the Xi-Lukashenko statement? All his government has done is issue a weak statement expressing its “deep regret.” It does not even dare lodge a protest with Beijing.
In view of Beijing’s continued denigration of Taiwan’s status, it is obvious that such a cross-strait consensus does not exist.
Former KMT lawmaker Su Chi (蘇起) said in 2006 that he had made up the term in 2000, when he headed the Mainland Affairs Council, just before the transfer of power to the Democratic Progressive Party government.
The question that needs asking is: Why should the public have to shoulder the consequences of Su’s lies at the expense of Taiwan’s sovereignty and dignity?
If Ma had any respect for the public as well his own status as the president of the Republic of China, he would acknowledge that there are indeed blatant differences between his government’s understanding and that of Beijing.
His insistence on hanging onto the fabricated “consensus” suggests his contempt for the public knows no bounds.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) has said that the biggest problem in this nation is that there are too many people “speaking bare-faced lies.”
Ma, sadly, is a prime example of this — and along with his brazenness, he is wrapping Taiwan tightly with “1992 consensus” chains, dragging the nation’s sovereignty and dignity down the drain.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS