Given that the Chinese Development Fund under the Mainland Affairs Council offered subsidies to Chinese students in Taiwan when former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was in power and under former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, why is the issue causing such conflict now that the KMT government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wants to do the same thing? Why is the Ma administration always blamed no matter what it does, and why is public trust in the government so low?
It is not only because we live in different times. More crucial is the public’s sense of relative deprivation caused by the Ma administration’s imbalanced, pro-Chinese policies.
As a result of the generally negative public view of the policy and an evaluation of its necessity, the council announced that the NT$30,000 (US$992) subsidy for Chinese students would be cancelled when Chinese students are allowed into Taiwanese universities in January for regular studies, as opposed to short-term programs.
Following heated statements about the previous DPP administration from the Presidential Office, the Cabinet, the KMT and even the council itself over the past few days, this announcement begs the question why the policy is being discontinued if it is so good.
If they feel that the policy is not entirely appropriate, then why have they defended it in such strident terms over the past few days? This government lacks all ability to engage in policy dialogue and promote a harmonious relationship with the opposition. This is really too much.
The CDF began offering subsidies to Chinese students in August 1995 when the council passed regulations permitting subsidies for Chinese postgraduate students writing their academic theses in Taiwan.
We only have to consider the situation at the time — Lee’s June visit to the US caused Sino-Taiwanese relations to deteriorate dramatically and in July, Chinese tests caused missiles to land in the waters off the coast of Taiwan — to understand that the purpose behind this policy was to promote an understanding of Taiwan among Chinese intellectuals and to increase exchanges between Taiwan and these intellectuals.
When the KMT handed over power to the DPP in May 2000, there was no fundamental change in the relationship between Taiwan and China. With this background, it is easy to understand the raison d’etre for continuing the policy.
The DPP’s eight years in power, with the exception of the first year when Chen actively tried to initiate dialogue with Beijing, was a constant dispute with China over Taiwanese sovereignty. In this situation, no one felt that Taiwan was denigrating itself or fawning on China by offering subsidies to 44 Chinese postgraduate students studying in Taiwan for two months per year.
In addition, Taiwan’s economic situation at the time allowed for it, and few people thought that there was anything inappropriate with Taiwan and China interacting as equal states.
Since the KMT returned to power in 2008, the situation has changed markedly. Without informing the public or first building a consensus, the Ma administration is speeding down the road toward China. Some people are exhilarated by the speed, but many more are in a panic because they are losing their right to free choice. As more Chinese are coming to Taiwan as a result of this policy, the general public will of course take another point of view when they read through the regulations. The balance of the original intent has completely gone and the political significance now seems to be flattery.
In particular, Ma told us during his presidential election campaign three years ago that if only he was elected, life in Taiwan would take a turn for the better. Today, however, we can see with our own eyes that the only thing that has taken a turn for the “better” is that housing prices keep rising and businesses are investing more in China, while the wealth gap has set a new record for two consecutive years on Ma’s watch.
These are cold facts published by the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS). In this situation, Ma wants to give Chinese postgraduate students a NT$60,000 subsidy. This is no longer only a matter of spending NT$6.85 million — the Chen administration spent NT$14.75 million over eight years on this policy, while the Ma administration’s expenditure is the highest of three consecutive governments — it is now a matter of relative deprivation.
Ma himself created very high expectations of himself and his government by issuing his 6-3-3 election promise, for example the “6” for a while described the unemployment rate instead of the annual GDP growth rate as intended.
Even so, the government has not reviewed its performance and still criticizes the DPP administration as often as it can, which is tantamount to pouring gasoline on the flames because of the disdain it inspires.
The government refuses to face up to real problems and now it keeps talking about how the DPP government also offered benefits to Chinese students in an attempt to avoid criticism and divert attention.
The government should ask itself why it is met by a storm of protest from Taiwanese students when no one complained when the governments of Lee and Chen subsidized Chinese students and whether it was really necessary for the council to announce an end to the subsidy.
It is of course the policy goal that is the greatest difference. Using the same amount of money but for different purposes will of course have a different effect, and the public will make up their own minds as to whether or not the policy is necessary.
That is why it is not the 15 year-old regulations that are the problem here, but rather the government’s actions.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS