In March 2008, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) became the sixth elected president of the Republic of China (ROC) with almost 7.66 million votes. Over his two years in office, Ma has continued to promote cross-strait negotiations and policies that involve opening Taiwan up to China.
He has promoted these policies by relying on his legitimacy as a popularly elected president, and although differences of opinion are unavoidable in a democracy, Ma has completed the groundwork for opening Taiwan up to China thanks to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) legislative majority.
However, we care deeply about the development of democracy in Taiwan, and in the face of ongoing talks about the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, we feel it necessary to alert Ma to the following points.
The first point pertains to the limits of legitimacy of a popularly elected president. Although the president can decide the overall principles of national security policies, this does not mean he can do whatever he wants.
The 7.66 million votes Ma received two years ago is less than half of Taiwan’s population and, more importantly, the principles of democracy still apply once an election is over. The fact that people voted for Ma does not mean they gave him a blank check to do as he pleases.
While most Taiwanese believe Taiwan and China should engage in negotiations, that does not mean a majority of the public agree with China’s premise that anything can be discussed based on the “one China” principle. The Taiwanese public were even more worried in 2005 when Lien Chan (連戰), in his capacity as KMT chairman, signed a joint communique with the General-Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Hu Jintao, (胡錦濤).
The communique stated that cross-strait negotiations should use the “direct three links” as a starting point and continue via the establishment of an economic cooperation mechanism, a cross-strait common market, a military confidence-building mechanism, then on to a peace agreement and a final solution. These guidelines clearly go beyond the powers bestowed on national leaders by the Constitution to handle matters of national security.
The second point is that a cross-strait trade agreement forced on the Taiwanese would lack legitimacy. While most people agree to a pragmatic approach to cross-strait trade and economic exchanges, a public consensus has yet to be reached on the issue of whether Taiwan and China should cancel the majority of tariffs and legal restrictions on trade then combining Taiwan and China into a free-trade area. These issues fill many people with doubt and worries.
Ma recently said in an interview that the ECFA talks focus on small but necessary issues and will be implemented gradually.
However, since current public opinion opposes the policy of creating a free-trade zone between Taiwan and China, what legitimacy and power does the president have to sign an economic agreement which would lead to the integration of the two sides into a free-trade area?
The third point we would like to make is that of responsible politics and generational justice. The policies and laws formulated by popularly elected officials can and do stay in place beyond their terms in office and therefore are legally binding and influence future generations. It is precisely for this reason that democratic politics require politicians to use their power carefully and take responsibility for future generations.
In particular, policies which relate to national security and the rights and welfare of the public must be limited by the principle of responsible politics. To ensure this, information on policies must be transparent, monitoring and checks and balances are necessary and should come from the separation of powers, and, where necessary, major issues should be decided by the public through a referendum.
The current ECFA policy which relies on China “letting the people of Taiwan benefit” may well let the current generation reap the benefits of the “early harvest” program that will result in more Taiwanese exports going to China. However, the next generation will have to deal with the impact on local industries of tariff-free imports from China. This is a very serious issue that will influence the welfare of future generations.
The government, however, is not disclosing information about the ECFA, it is not letting the legislature review it and it is not willing to put it to a referendum. These moves pose an unprecedented threat to Taiwan’s democracy and welfare.
We therefore urge Ma to be cautious when using his presidential powers. We also urge him to slow down the pace of the ECFA talks.
He should adopt a more responsible attitude and ensure that this major policy, which is linked to cross-strait relations and the future of democracy in Taiwan, be decided through open discussion.
If not, the inking of an ECFA will not only further aggravate domestic divisions, it will also increase social tensions on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We are sure that this is something Ma does not want to see.
Honigmann Hong is an assistant professor in the China studies program at National Tsing Hua University, Lai Chung-chiang is a lawyer and Chen Shang-chih is an assistant professor in the department of political science at National Chung-Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS