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
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.