President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been repeatedly endorsing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential nominee Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) “one China, same interpretation” formula. He has even brought the phrase with him on his foreign travels, saying it falls within the scope of Ma’s longstanding mantra of “one China, with each side having their own interpretation.”
It is clear that Hung was able to glide through the primaries without a hitch because her biggest supporter is Ma.
There is a proverb in Chinese: “A husband and wife, like two birds that inhabit the same patch of forest, are momentary companions; when faced with difficulty, each flies their separate way.” In this sentence, are the words “same” and “each” identical in meaning? Not unless the proverb is appended with: “Eventually, both birds fly into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) lair.” This shared final destination is, of course, the main reason Ma supports Hung.
For successive days, the Chinese-language Web site China Review News Agency, whose main financial backer is China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, has been voicing grievances on behalf of Hung, and political commentators have revealed that Chinese officials have held secret meetings with Hung’s inner circle. All this effort is aimed at achieving the same goal: unification with China.
No matter how you look at it, there is a world of difference between the terms “each side having their own interpretation” and “same interpretation.”
To use the wearing of pants as an analogy, currently Ma and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) are wearing different pants. Although the brand, “China,” is the same, their pants are a different style and length. However, Hung and Xi are wearing the same pair of pants: brand, style and size. Hung has forced herself into Xi’s capacious lower garment.
Since Hung’s “one China, same interpretation” formula has caused a backlash among the public — and even within the KMT’s conservative faction — both Ma and KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have been trying to guide Hung back to their version of “one China.” Hung, with her blunt manner, needs to learn to employ Ma’s verbal sleight of hand, and temporarily refrain from using her “same interpretation” mantra.
During the Taipei mayoral election in 1998, Ma said: “I am a new Taiwanese who grew up eating Taiwanese rice and drinking Taiwanese water.”
Ahead of the 2008 presidential election, Ma again said: “Even if I were struck down and burnt to ashes, I would still be Taiwanese.”
However on becoming president, Ma’s prime task has been to sell Taiwan out to China.
Now, Hung is parroting a similar line, saying: “I eat Taiwanese rice, how can I not love Taiwan?” Hung, a female version of Ma, has shown her true colors.
Ma and Hung are cut from the same cloth: Both are obedient disciples of a one-party state education system. Hung is akin to a head lecturer, and Ma a professional student. This education system is still causing damage to Taiwan; producing either ferocious wolves like Hung or seemingly gentle pussycats like Ma as its leaders. Taiwan’s education system is in need of reform.
Last year’s Sunflower movement and this year’s campaign to stop the so-called “minor adjustments” to the high-school curriculum guidelines shows that young Taiwanese have a desire to change their future.
The curriculum can be seen as the soul of Taiwan’s education system. By attempting to ram through “minor adjustments” to the curriculum guidelines, Ma has lobbed a grenade into the political arena before stepping down from office. This is why Hung has been shouting herself hoarse, saying the changes to the curriculum do not go far enough.
Hung also keeps talking about the battle for historical interpretation between the Republic of China (ROC) and those advocating Taiwanese independence. Lest it should be forgotten, the historical perspectives of the ROC and the CCP only differ in the slightest degree. For the most part, however, both sides share the same interpretation of Chinese history. From the Opium Wars up until Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) military unification of China, both the KMT and CCP have worn the same pair of pants.
Since the opening-up of China, both Ma and Hung have ignored China’s reactionary politics, instead rushing headlong toward China’s enveloping economy to achieve their goal of political unification.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Edward Jones
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers