The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the helm, has been in power for almost eight years, during which time it has had control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. Why is it, then, that Taiwan’s economy has continued to tank, with salaries returning to levels they were at 16 years ago? Why is it that so many people have taken to the streets to demonstrate against the government’s policies and oppose the cross-strait trade in services agreement that the KMT negotiated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Why is it that high-school students throughout the nation coordinated protests against the KMT’s attempts to introduce contentious curricular changes on the quiet? What is wrong with the way the KMT is running the nation?
Many economists say that when those in power are completely satisfied with their policies, citizens are less than glowing about those same policies. The KMT is even now attempting to cast any protest as expressions of populism. These differences of opinion, the same economists would say, stem not from an arrogance on the part of the government, but from another cause, for which economic theory can provide an explanation.
Positive economic theory says that when a policy is subjected to logical analysis, policymakers necessarily make decisions from a range of options. However, it says little about of which of these options they choose. It falls to normative economic theory to explain that the choices made tend to be based upon ideological preferences.
The tensions that exist between the KMT and voters in the current political climate are actually born of an ideological divide between a Taiwanese ideology and an imperial Chinese ideology. Looked at closely, the “one China” principle of the “1992 consensus” has never been about striving for the happiness of the respective peoples of Taiwan and China: The “one China” principle, to which the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) subscribe, supports Chinese imperial rule of both nations. Authoritarian imperial regimes excel at lies and intimidation to subjugate people and satisfy its desire for power.
For the two authoritarian parties in Beijing and in Taipei, unifying China and Taiwan has little to do with what people in each nation want, and neither does it have anything to do with peace.
It is, rather, a key strategy of the Chinese communist empire for expanding the imperial regime’s power by breaking up the West Pacific island chain.
Since Ma came to power, the direction his government has taken Taiwan has been informed by this Chinese imperialist ideology. All of his policies, including the “diplomatic truce,” the weakening of Taiwan’s ability to defend itself, the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement and the cross-strait trade in services agreement — ostensibly aimed at maintaining the “status quo” and peace across the Taiwan Strait — have actually been policies of surrender to the Chinese communists’ authoritarian regime. The KMT has spent the past eight years committed to achieving unification with the Chinese empire. The KMT has been lying and selling Taiwan out.
The Chinese imperialist ideology, held by KMT Chairman and presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫), is forged of the same stuff as that of Ma’s. The language he has been using during this campaign has been the language of lies. Many can surely still remember the campaign promises Ma made for election to his first term — that he would not touch the issue of independence or unification — and recall, too, what he said during his inauguration speech: “the great Taiwanese people.”
One shudders at the recollection. Ma and Chu are cut from the same cloth. The KMT and the CCP grew from the same dirt. They are unified by a belief in the authoritarian Chinese imperialist ideology, brandishing the banner of Taiwanese democracy in their campaign against national democracy.
Taiwanese should not allow themselves to continue to be deceived in this way: The KMT’s Chinese imperialist ideology is the very source of the political and economic chaos plaguing the nation today.
Lin Wei-shong is a management consultant with a doctorate in managerial economics.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath