When it comes to cross-strait relations, many people at home and abroad habitually use biases and preconceptions to gauge public sentiment and make predictions.
One of the most frequently cited, and widely believed, preconceptions is that Beijing is friendly toward the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and hostile toward the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Most analysts hold to the notion that Taiwanese place greater trust in the KMT’s cross-strait policy than in the DPP’s, reasoning that the former leads to amicability from the other side of the Taiwan Strait, while the latter brings threats or the cold shoulder.
These preconceptions have dominated discussions about cross-strait affairs for decades, so much so that anything that suggests otherwise is hastily dismissed as untrue or “fake news.”
Not for the first time, the KMT and DPP have been pointing fingers and accusing each other of orchestrating poll results to sway public opinion in favor of their respective cross-strait policies.
The “poll war” began on Oct. 30, when the Cross-Strait Policy Association published a survey in which President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) policy received the most support from respondents at 45 percent, followed by that of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) at 28 percent and KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) at 18.3 percent.
The survey results infuriated the KMT, which believes that it has enjoyed a formidable monopoly on cross-strait issues. It was quick to accuse the association of releasing “fake surveys,” saying that the association has suspicious ties with the DPP, as its leadership roles were occupied by pan-green individuals in the past.
In a perceived retaliatory move, the National Policy Foundation, a KMT-affiliated think tank, on Tuesday released a survey that found most respondents — 46.6 percent — did not believe that Tsai’s policies would be helpful in maintaining cross-strait peace and stability.
It also asked respondents which of the two major parties’ China policy could better safeguard Taiwanese safety and interests, to which 36.8 percent said the KMT’s and 19.9 percent said the DPP’s.
On the surface, it does seem like the two surveys offer conflicting results. However, surveys are not completely reliable, with results depending largely on how questions are phrased and the polling method employed.
Putting aside the results, what the “poll war” indicates is a continued unwillingness, especially among proponents of closer cross-strait ties, to accommodate new and different possibilities.
People prefer to think that cross-strait ties can only be “too warm” or “too cold” and that the only ways of approaching Beijing are provocation, as traditionally employed by the DPP, or pandering, which is the KMT’s trademark.
Despite pressure from the nation’s increasingly vocal pro-independence movement, Tsai has apparently decided to break away from the traditional preconceptions and seek a new cross-strait approach: maintaining goodwill and the “status quo,” while refusing to succumb to pressure.
Maybe that is why the association’s poll showed her gaining public support.
Cross-strait ties are extremely intricate and variable. Clinging to past practices and ideologies has only stalled exchanges. It is time for all parties to blaze new trails and explore different possibilities, so that cross-strait relationships can keep evolving.
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry