President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said that when he was a reserve officer for the Republic of China (ROC) armed forces, he was selected as a military trainer because of a series of lectures he gave on crushing the Communist United Front plot to unify Taiwan and China.
Had Ma actually remained committed to this cause over the past seven years in which he has been in office, then his popularity rating might never have plummeted to 9 percent, as it has.
However, he seems to have forgotten himself since those heady days as a military trainer. Now, as president, not only has he forgotten about crushing the Chinese communist “bandits” united front, he has actually been working with these bandits against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan’s own united front, and has tried to force Taiwanese to accept the non-existent, so-called “1992 consensus.”
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) has joined Ma and the Chinese communists in demanding that DPP Chairperson and presidential nominee Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) clarify exactly what she means when she speaks of “maintaining the status quo” within the Taiwan Strait.
Ma has also said, with an equal measure of intimidation in his tone to that of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), that a failure to accept the “1992 consensus” would certainly result in chaos and calamity in the Taiwan Strait.
His insistence on this is a throwback to an era when there was no brooking of dissenting views, crying foul that Tsai has somehow transgressed the rules by failing to bring up the “1992 consensus” during her recent visit to the US.
Over the past six decades the language used by the US on the issue of the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait has been quite clear: That the two sides of the Strait are currently separate, that they are not unified and that they do not have political relations.
The general consensus among Taiwanese, too, is that Taiwan and China are not the same country. The citizens of each country have their own ID cards and passports, and Chinese tourists entering Taiwan, just like tourists from the US, do so with non-citizen status.
Clearly, the “status quo” does not refer to the future. The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party are denying reality and rejecting democratic principles, and want to wrest from Taiwanese the right to freedom of choice, thereby locking Taiwan’s destiny to being annexed by China and identifying the “future” with the current “status quo.” The DPP does not have to accept such a preposterous stance and neither does it have a duty to do so.
For Chu and Ma to insist that Tsai clarifies exactly what she means by the “status quo” is little more than political sophistry and a cheap trick. They are attempting to get Tsai to fall into their trap by refusing to pay heed to their demand and thereby allowing them to claim that she is not clear on the issue. They are trying to get her on the defensive, by forcing her to have to account for herself.
The two men have tried belittling Tsai, saying that her trip to the US was “a test” and wanting her to accept the “1992 consensus.” Chinese Ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai (崔天凱) took this and ran with it, saying that Tsai should first pass the test of 1.3 billion Chinese and ask the opinion of “compatriots” on the other side of the Taiwan Strait.
To this, Tsai retorted that she followed democratic values, and that, according to the “status quo,” she is only answerable to the 23 million Taiwanese. Nice.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
The Ministry of the Interior late last month released its report on homes that consumed low amounts of electricity in the second half of last year, offering a glimpse of the latest data on “vacant houses” — homes using less than 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. The report showed that Taiwan had 914,196 vacant houses, or a vacancy rate of 9.79 percent, up from 9.32 percent in the first half of last year and the highest since 2008, when it was 9.81 percent. Of the nation’s 22 administrative areas, Lienchiang County (Matsu) had the highest vacancy rate at 17.4
RSS