During a talk on cross-strait relations and international law at Soochow University in Taipei on Tuesday, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) commented on the possibility of Taiwanese independence, comments which were more illuminating about the past than the future.
Ma reiterated his stance on unification with China, as if it needed clarification — Ma is all for it.
Taiwanese independence has nowhere to go and there is no need for it. Even if there were, it is unachievable, he said.
Chinese communists have put “peaceful unification” on the table. Taiwanese can just bide their time and things will progress accordingly, he said.
Good things come to those who wait.
Ma prefers the word “unification,” which does sound palatable. The word suggests unity, a coming together of equal parties working toward a mutually beneficial future.
The word annexation would be closer to the truth. Taking over. Swallowing up. Devouring.
In addition to promising peace, Beijing should offer to proceed using democratic processes, Ma added.
If Taiwanese do not choose unification, then we can just maintain peace and try again later when the time is right.
When Ma was president, he followed a “three noes” policy: no unification, no independence and no use of force. He discounted independence, but was not willing to talk about unification explicitly, because the time would come when it would happen naturally.
That being the case, why use force?
As president, he said that he was putting Taiwan first; what he was actually doing was setting out the conditions for eventual peaceful unification.
Now he is disingenuously suggesting that making this happen through a democratic process is a viable option for Taiwanese and Chinese alike.
Where has he been? Does he not know that the vast majority of Taiwanese identify with Taiwan, not China? Does he not remember the routing his party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), was subjected to at the hands of an electorate that resoundingly rejected his pro-China stance?
He also criticized the Democratic Progressive Party’s Resolution on Taiwan’s Future (台灣前途決議文) for its contradiction, saying that Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation that is called the Republic of China (ROC).
He is right. There is a glaring contradiction. He did not mention that its tenaciousness was due in large part to his own party’s refusal to let the ROC fade into history where it belongs.
However, the best part of his talk was when he said that the majority of the rights that Taiwanese independence advocates want have already been realized.
Again, he is right. The problem is that these rights — democracy and human rights, for starters — have come about not because of his party and its stranglehold over Taiwan, but in spite of it, and only grudgingly conceded when Taiwanese made it clear they would not take no for an answer.
These hard-won rights are also precisely what Taiwanese fear would be taken away should China swallow the nation.
Ma is justified in expressing his opinion that independence is unachievable. It would certainly take a more skilled politician than himself to achieve it.
To suggest that unification is a desirable option that can be achieved through democratic means and would be equal in any way is utterly disingenuous. His position on this coheres perfectly with the direction in which he steered Taiwan while president.
Ma’s surname means “horse” and indeed, he acts like a Trojan horse.
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
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
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS