With their time in power ending in less than two years, the discourse propagated by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government is becoming increasingly focused on eventual unification with China.
Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission Minister Jaclyn Tsai (蔡玉玲), who at first welcomed a visit by the Dalai Lama to Taiwan, changed her tune after China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said that such a visit would only hurt cross-strait relations. She is now saying that if the Dalai Lama applies for a visa to Taiwan, she would consider the interests of the country and the general public in handling the application in a way that is agreeable to both host and guest.
This reaction is very similar to how Ma reacted to a different warning from the office: The president has kept quiet ever since the Taiwan Affairs Office responded after he voiced support for the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by saying he should stop making irresponsible remarks. Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Wu Mei-hung (吳美紅) went as far as to say: “We have never said we support the Occupy Central campaign.”
Astonishingly, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) has said that cross-strait relations have reached the stage where all doors are wide open and that any invitation to the Dalai Lama should be preceded by first contacting China over the matter.
He also said that based on the KMT’s view that there is “one China” — with each side having their own interpretation of what that “China” means — Taiwan is also part of China and since the Dalai Lama cannot visit China, a visit to Taiwan would be tantamount to him returning to China. It would seem that in the minds of the Ma camp’s legislators, there are certain matters that, should Taiwan want to carry them out, require that Taipei first contact Beijing and give assurances that it is not trying to stir up trouble, as well as make it clear that Taiwan is part of China.
If, as Wu suggests, the nation would really have to pay that price to invite the Dalai Lama for a visit, then would that not be the same thing as inviting the Tibetan leader just to show that Taiwan is part of China? That would also mean that Chinese officials visiting Taiwan are really only coming here to inspect the Chinese countryside.
It is worth noting that Wu’s statement caused a dispute, after which the council rushed endorse it and say that the “China” Wu was talking about was the Republic of China and that his view was in line with the constitutional system. It is obvious that Wu’s view reflects those held by Ma and his administration.
To say that the Republic of China is the same as China blithely ignores that the China recognized by most of the international community is the People’s Republic of China. Particularly questionable is that the Ma administration at first blacklisted the Dalai Lama, but now wants to use him to endorse Taiwan being a part of China. The Dalai Lama, however, would find that unbearable.
On Oct. 24, Ma reiterated his plan to continue talks on the cross-strait trade in goods agreement; implement the cross-strait service trade agreement and the act regulating the oversight of cross-strait negotiations; and that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should sign an agreement to establish reciprocal liaison offices as soon as possible.
He stressed that the representative office proposal is intended mainly to provide liaison services, that it would have no political significance and that it would in no way attempt to emulate the foreign affairs framework because the cross-strait relationship, of course, is not an international one.
Continuously wasting breath on repeating that the cross-strait relationship is not international just to keep Beijing at ease is another expression of the same “local government” mindset that makes the Ma administration want to keep the Chinese government calm by saying that Taiwan is part of China. Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) is showing the same talent for playing the stooge when he acts as Beijing’s mouthpiece.
On Oct. 23, the KMT appealed the first and second verdicts handed down by the courts denying its attempt to kick Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) out of the party by filing yet another appeal in the Supreme Court, ignoring the many voices within the party calling for reconciliation and unity.
Ostensibly, the KMT leadership’s reason for appealing the verdict is that it wants to prevent the party’s disciplinary system from collapsing, but the real reason is that it wants to prevent the party chairman’s prestige and authority from being trampled.
This is of course because Ma — whose support ratings stand at just 9 percent — is forced to rely on the party-state framework and the party’s ability to lead the government to be able to eliminate dissidents, dominate public opinion and force KMT legislators to pass the cross-strait service trade agreement, the trade in goods agreement and the pact to exchange liaison offices. In doing so, he is locking Taiwan’s economy onto China’s to help Beijing gain a solid hold on Taiwan and realize the Chinese dream that the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT share — the dream in which Taiwan is part of China.
When Ma met with US professor Michael Porter, a leading authority on corporate strategy, on Oct. 24, he said that Taiwan’s competitiveness was ranked 18th on a list of 144 countries, but that Taiwanese salaries only ranked 60th in the world. Ma said this was both quite odd and worrying, and that the causes of this discrepancy had to be identified since it was having a negative impact on the nation’s competitiveness.
This was quite ironic, since the problem is Ma himself. It is his China-leaning policies that have caused workers’ salaries to move closer toward China’s low-salary standard, while all the benefits of cross-strait trade have been monopolized by Ma’s supporters across business and political circles.
If Ma continues to insist on only doing things his own way and ignoring all other opinions, salaries will continue to drop, as will Taiwan’s competitiveness. Ma, however, is not worried, because that would mean that he really will get his own page in the history books.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS