President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration suffers from a contradictory mental state, a personality split that trumpets upholding Taiwan’s national interests and dignity, while its actions over the past seven years belie its words.
The latest evidence is the Ma government’s bid to join the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
On Tuesday, the government said that it would not apply for AIIB membership if Beijing insists that Taiwan subjects itself to a stipulation saying that an applicant that “does not enjoy sovereignty or cannot take responsibility for its international relations” must have its application “presented or agreed upon by the member of the bank responsible for its international relations.”
China has never renounced its ambition to annex Taiwan and the language of the article aims to denigrate the nation’s status; as such, the Ma administration ought be lauded for saying that Taiwan would not join the bank if its sovereignty would be compromised.
That said, many must wonder why the Ma administration in March was in such a rush to apply?
The government applied for the AIIB on the night of March 31 — the application deadline. The letter of intent to become a founding member of the AIIB, which the Ma administration submitted through the cross-strait communication channel between the Mainland Affairs Council and China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, lacked the official name of the nation and the Ministry of Finance. The full title of Minister of Finance Chang Sheng-ford (張盛和) was not beneath his signature and the letter was not printed on government letterhead.
The rush to apply to the AIIB in such a self-degrading manner highlights the contradictions between Ma’s actions and his pledge to maintain Taiwan’s dignity.
Since taking office in May 2008, Ma has forged closer ties with China and created the impression that Beijing means no harm. Aside from a statement reiterating that the relations between Taiwan and China are not state-to-state, but rather “region-to-region,” Ma has obstinately ignored that Beijing has never acknowledged the idea of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
As such, on the pretense of what it calls “putting aside the sovereignty dispute,” the Ma administration is fracturing Taiwan’s status as a sovereign state.
The administration’s insistence on the so-called “1992 consensus” serves only to erode the nation’s international standing and propel Taiwan’s sovereignty into further ambiguity and an existential crisis.
China, on the other hand, has become more tactful in its dealing with Taiwan since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) came to power. However subtly, China is showing a new pattern of assertiveness to “Hong Kong-ize” (香港化) Taiwan, creating an international impression that Taiwan is part of China.
This is obvious from the AIIB incident, Beijing’s recent announcement that Taiwanese visitors no longer need to apply for entry permits to China and when in May during a meeting with Xi, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) remarked that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China.”
Furthermore, a new security law China adopted yesterday undoubtedly encroaches on Taiwan’s sovereign status.
The split personality of the Ma administration and the KMT risks leaving Taiwan defenseless against China’s annexation agenda.
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS