Vote the KMT out
Not long after the the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was signed on June 29, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) declared that it should be regarded as a treaty and that the legislature must accept or reject the pact without making any amendments.
It has yet to be decided if the ECFA is a treaty or not. Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) stressed that, based on interpretations by the Council of Grand Justices, no cross-strait agreement can be viewed as a treaty.
It is clear that the ECFA is not a treaty, because a treaty is an agreement signed between sovereign states. The ECFA was not signed by two sovereign states, but by the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS). These may be quasi-official bodies, but no government officials were involved in the signing. Thus, the ECFA is not a treaty. it has also been negotiated behind closed doors.
In 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) declared that the Republic of China (ROC) had ceased to exist and thus Beijing refuses to recognize Ma as president of the ROC. In fact, the ECFA can be regarded as an agreement between the government of Taiwan region and the central government of China.
At first Ma regarded the ECFA as a treaty, but later changed his mind to say that although the ECFA was not a treaty it should be treated as one. He has also said that the legislature can only accept or reject the ECFA in its entirety.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has pointed to the legislature’s article-by-article reviews of free-trade agreements (FTA) with El Salvador and Honduras, the Intellectual Property Rights Protection Agreements with the American Institute in Taiwan and the Extradition Treaty with the Dominican Republic. Wang has also raised the legislature’s article-by-article reviews of international covenants signed between Taiwan and its Central American allies.
As the elected president of a democratic country, Ma should not be manipulating the legislature’s review of the ECFA. Indeed, his tactics have become frighteningly reminiscent of those used by former dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has 75 legislators and controls the legislature, which is why Ma is confident it will accede to his demands and obediently pass the ECFA.
The opposition has sought to have the ECFA decided in a national referendum, twice, but both times been rejected. The DPP has no way of voting down the ECFA with only 33 seats in the legislature.
Since Ma assumed the presidency in 2008, he has skillfully collaborated with the PRC to promote his goal of unification with China. He has sacrificed Taiwan’s sovereignty, reduced the country to an “area” or “region” of China and himself to a regional head of Taiwan.
Ma said Taiwan would sign FTAs with other countries, yet Taiwan Affairs Office director Wang Yi (王毅) said China would not allowed this even after signing the ECFA. Furthermore, Taiwan has been forced by China to use the title “Chinese Taipei” on the international stage. Can “Chinese Taipei” really sign FTAs with sovereign nations?
An ECFA will gradually bind Taiwan to a Chinese common market, another step toward the extinction of a democratic and sovereign Taiwan. To prevent Ma’s unification plans, the DPP must win back the presidency in 2012.
EDWIN KUNG
Washington State
Live legislature please
Following the fighting in the legislature during the provisional session to review the ECFA (“DPP walks out of ECFA review,” July 10, page 1), Wang Jin-pyng said: “As the speaker standing on the podium, I did not hear anyone express his or her opposition [to the motion]. [In fact], I could not hear anything at all because of the chaos in front of me … If I had heard something, I would have dealt with [the opposition] in accordance with legislative procedures.”
The proceedings of the legislature should be recorded, then the video could be played back, showing the public the true facts of the case — not what the DPP or the KMT said.
So what is the truth? Having all major legislative proceedings televised live nationally would do wonders to improve the democratic process in Taiwan.
OU GENE
Taichung
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS