Yesterday marked seven years in office for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). On Monday there was a special international press conference, during which Ma ruminated on his performance. The latest opinion polls suggest an increase in his ratings, up from 9 percent. The polls are now showing only 60 to 70 percent of respondents are unhappy with his performance. Regardless, Ma has always been satisfied with his work, casting himself as the man who has set the foundations for the future, and saying he can sleep well at night. He does not seem to understand why many Taiwanese are worried about the future, and find themselves unable to sleep.
Ma likes to blame the previous administration, even as he approaches the end of his second term. He says that seven years ago he inherited a reeling nation. Back then, he was swept to power with campaign promises of “being prepared” and of delivering an economic growth rate of 6 percent, an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent and a yearly per capita income of more than US$30,000 within his first term, something he has utterly failed to do. Although the TAIEX has passed the 10,000 point mark, this is due to international factors rather than the decisions and efforts made by the government.
More serious is the way that the Ma administration has prioritized the wealthy over the lower and middle classes, and public servants over workers. This has increased greed and hampered equality within society, and in so doing exacerbated unfairness in inter-generational distribution of social welfare, while also increasing government debt and fostering more social frustration.
The Ma administration has generally shown itself to be pretty incompetent, with Cabinet changes coming thick and fast. Ma has had four premiers in seven years. Former premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) resigned to take responsibility for the government’s disastrous response to Typhoon Morakot, and ministers fell on their swords over the capital gains tax and second-generation health insurance fiascoes. More recently, a transportation minister resigned over high-speed rail reform proposals; an education minister left, not because of the 12-year curriculum reform proposals, but rather over a plagiarism scandal; a Mainland Affairs Council official stood down for unwittingly leaking confidential information; and several others have departed due to sex scandals. Each of them fell on their swords, but where does the responsibility ultimately lie?
Ma is particularly proud of the state of cross-strait relations. Taiwan has visa-exempt status with more than 140 countries, but being careful about what China thinks when Taiwan takes part in international events has at least kept relations with Beijing stable, to the extent that Taiwanese do not really remember who is in charge of foreign relations or national defense. However, the government’s pro-China, opaque way of doing things, such as the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) and a service trade agreement, have caused much suspicion and dissatisfaction in Taiwan, which finally erupted into the Sunflower movement last year.
When asked why the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is having difficulties fielding a strong presidential candidate, he angrily responded that this is the party chairman’s responsibility. However, the KMT’s poor performance to this point, leading to unprecedentedly low popularity levels — not to say last year’s rout in the nine-in-one elections — should lie at the feet of the man who previous to the elections was concurrently president and party chairman.
Ma has one year left in his final term. His team has collapsed, with little hope of staging a miraculous turnaround. The public has lost confidence in him and expect precious little of him. For the final year, the public has little choice but to sit it out, hope the time passes quickly and trust that the next president will be better.
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
Retired army major general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰), a former head the Taoyuan chapter of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) veterans branch, on Wednesday last week said that chapter head Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) — who dismissed Yu from his position — “would rather see cross-strait unification than yield to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government.” The statement ignited public debate, as it was the first time that a retired officer loyal to the nation — and the KMT — said out loud what has long been rumored among the public: Some KMT members would rather work with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)