 |
| Published on Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/09/17/2003423388 [LETTERS] Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008, Page 8 Ma: The de-Taiwanifier British playwright George Bernard Shaw was once purportedly told by a beautiful lady: “Sir, imagine if we two got married — our children would get my looks and your brains.” To which, Shaw replied: “Yes, but what if they got my looks and your brains?” |
2008年9月17日 星期三
Ma: The de-Taiwanifier
2008年9月10日 星期三
idiot as Ma at Taiwan
|
| Published on Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/09/10/2003422793 DPP slams president over ‘Taiwan region’ comment NOT AN ISSUE: Ma’s latest reference to Taiwan had the DPP up in arms, with some members saying the KMT was taking the nation ever closer to unificationBy Rich Chang STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008, Page 3 The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of denigrating the country by referring to it as the “Republic of China, Taiwan region” (中華民國台灣地區) on Monday. While receiving Brian Mishara, president of the International Association for Suicide Prevention, and recipients of the 2008 International Caring for Life Awards on Monday, Ma pledged that his administration would endeavor to reduce the suicide rate, adding that suicide was now the nation’s ninth leading cause of death. |
Ma’s absurd surrender?
President vows to follow through on ‘6-3-3’ policy
MONEY WORRIES: Premier Liu Chao-shiuan defended the Cabinet’s efforts to improve the economy, saying the stock market would improve in the fourth quarter
By Mo Yan-Chih
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Sep 07, 2008, Page 1
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) pledged again yesterday to carry out his “6-3-3” economic policy, while promising that his administration would reflect upon its performance in the face of growing anger.
One day after offering apologies to the public for failing to explain the policy clearly in a recent interview with a Mexican newspaper, Ma yesterday brushed off concerns that he would be unable to follow through with his plans.
“We did not give up the ‘6-3-3’ policy and the campaign promise was not broken. The government will do its best to carry out the policy,” Ma said during a meeting with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) members in Tainan County.
The “6-3-3” economic policy, which refers to an annual GDP growth of 6 percent, an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent and annual per capita income of US$30,000, was a major campaign platform presented by Ma during the presidential election.
The Ma administration’s ability to carry out the policy, however, has been called into question after the president acknowledged during an interview with Mexican daily Sol de Mexico late last month that the three goals may not be achievable until 2016 because of the global economic slowdown.
During the meeting yesterday, some urged Ma to fulfill his campaign promises to improve the economy and tackle corruption, while warning him of consequences if his administration failed to carry out its policies.
“If President Ma does not show determination and does not clamp down on corruption, I think the KMT should drop out from the elections for local government heads next year. President Ma can also forget about re-election in 2012,” a KMT member said.
Ma reiterated his defense yesterday, saying the goal of raising income to US$30,000 had always been targeted for 2016. Ma said he had planned to achieve annual GDP growth of 6 percent in two years, but he would now seek to achieve those goals by the end of his term in 2012 because of the global economy.
Meanwhile, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) defended the Cabinet’s efforts to improve the economy yesterday at a meeting of KMT local government heads in Changhua County. Liu urged the public to have faith in the government.
In response to the stock market’s plunge below 7,000 points last week, Liu said that only by strengthening economic fundamentals could the stock market improve.
Liu said the policies, including domestic demand expansion projects and energy-saving measures, all aimed to improve the economy in the long run, adding that the government is confident the market would rise in the fourth quarter.
The Cabinet vowed on Friday to present a proposal in the coming week and formulate “miracle cures” to lift the slumping market.
County official says Beijing to blame for low tourist numbers
GET IN LINE: The second most populated province in China has only a single agency handling tourism to Taiwan, a Taipei County tourism bureau official said
STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA
Sunday, Sep 07, 2008, Page 3
“It takes five days to send an ordinary piece of mail from Taipei to Beijing.”— Huang Shu-chien, Chunghwa Post vice president
A Taipei County official yesterday called on Chinese authorities to relax regulations that have limited the number of Chinese visiting Taiwan for tourism.
Chin Huei-chu (秦慧珠), director of the Taipei County Tourism Promotion Bureau, made the call in Xiamen, Fujian Province, where she is attending a travel fair.
A county government statement quoted Chin as saying strict Chinese regulations were responsible for the low number of Chinese who had visited Taiwan since the two sides launched cross-strait weekend charter flights in July.
Under the agreement, up to 3,000 Chinese could enter Taiwan per day, but less than 300 have come per day on average.
Chin said she saw the problems first-hand during her visit to Shandong last month to attend an international travel fair. Shandong is China’s second-largest province in terms of population, with 96 million people, and enjoys the second-largest GDP behind Guangdong.
Yet only one travel agency in the province was authorized to offer tours to Taiwan and the agency is limited to three tour guides for Taiwan trips, Chin said.
This means people must wait for a spot on one of the agency’s tours to Taiwan, she said.
Chin said she would ask the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) to suggest in talks with China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) that Beijing authorize more local travel agencies to offer tours to Taiwan.
The Xiamen travel fair, organized by the Chinese National Tourism Administration and the Fujian provincial government, has attracted representatives from government tourism agencies and private tour companies from around China, as well as from countries in Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US.
Taipei County has a booth at the fair.
Meanwhile, Taiwanese and Chinese mail operators are calling for direct mail delivery across the Taiwan Strait.
“It takes five days to send an ordinary piece of mail from Taipei to Beijing because the mail has to go through Japan or Kong Kong,” Chunghwa Post vice president Huang Shu-chien (黃書健) said.
“The opening of direct mail delivery would halve the [delivery] time and cost,” he said.
Wang Yuci (王渝次), deputy head of China’s postal authority, also urged both sides to open direct mail delivery.
Ma’s absurd surrender?
While every person in Taiwan with common sense always knew that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) ultimate goal is to surrender and unite with China, he has made it official himself in his interview with the Mexican newspaper El Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26.
He was quoted as saying: “The relationship is a special one, but that relationship is not between two countries …While it is unlikely that double recognition of both sides of the Taiwan Strait can be obtained from any foreign country, we must maintain a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Beijing” (“‘State to state’ theory is dead, Ma says,” Sept. 4, page 1).
This is official surrender. But is it surrender or simply meeting the expectations of his people in the so-called “mainland region”?
Of course, the Presidential Office will continue trying to convince the public that this is not surrender.
What else should we call it? A “diplomatic truce”?
Alex Raymond
Niaosong,
Kaohsiung County
While reading Ma’s comments as recorded in El Sol de Mexico, I could not help pondering the days when I would read such “absurdist” authors and playwrights as Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco.
My profound love and concern for Taiwan — especially its students whom I used to teach — leads me to experience a sadness that borders on grief.
Ma gets it right when he says that neither the People’s Republic of China nor the Republic of China allows for the existence of another country or state within its territory. This is by definition the essence of sovereignty.
There presently exist two self-governing and sovereign states on either side of the Taiwan Strait.
Where Ma wanders into absurdist “la-la land” is when he refers to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Perhaps mine may be considered a naive question posed by an ignorant foreigner, but I will ask it anyway: Does the “1992 consensus” exist in any written form? Was the “1992 consensus” ever recorded or transcribed?
If so, who were the signatories to this document? Did they have the authority vested in them to sign their names on such a document?
The term “1992 consensus” has been bandied about since its birth (or is still birth a more accurate term?). It seems that much could be at stake in regard to this “consensus.” It seems that certain politicians would feign to permit public policy be dictated by this “consensus.”
Certain politicians seem to be willing to allow this “consensus” to set their course and hence that of the nation.
So one would do well to ascertain the legitimacy of the “1992 consensus.”
A thought experiment that I find interesting is to question whether said consensus has any validity in a Taiwanese court. What is the legal basis of this “consensus”?
Perhaps a person with a law degree from Harvard or Yale could answer this question. Has this consensus been vetted or reviewed by any panel of justices?
Most importantly, has anyone consulted the 23 million people living in Taiwan for their opinion on the matter?
Or is the “1992 consensus” at best — at the very best — an empty slogan and empty words with no basis in fact or reality? Is it merely an absurd illusion, or even a delusion?
How can two people or parties maintain two “interpretations” while talking about one thing? In my mind, to do this adds absurdity to a paradox that is already mired in inanity and senselessness.
I seem to remember reading once about a group of philosophers in ancient China. I believe that they attached great importance to the names of things.
These philosophers called for the “rectification of names.” They understood that if any progress were to be made, people had to be sure that they were designating the same thing when they used a certain word.
Karl Marx said that events in history first appear as a tragedy before reappearing as farce. Designating Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei” would be farcical were it not a question of the tragic humiliation of some 23 million people.
Out of all the countries represented at the Beijing Olympics, only Taiwan — free and democratic Taiwan — was made to endure such an outrageous humiliation.
The world should be ashamed of itself.
Michael Scanlon
Kaohsiung County
2008年9月5日 星期五
中華冥國的"長官"於830的嘴臉
| 【video】中華冥國的"長官"於830的嘴臉 |  |
| 新聞報導 - 自由論壇 | |
| 作者 Aries | |
| 2008/09/05, Friday | |
| 中華冥國有一種叫做"警察大人"這種"長官"的動物，最喜歡面子與欺負台灣人，尤其是要宣傳台灣意識的團體，打壓絕不手軟，事情是醬子開始的…… （感謝大地的志工們奮力爭取自己的權利，也感謝所有路見不平，出手相助的武林高手們 n_n~ ）
228 Taiwan Spirits video by Cathy （文字source: 龜毛萍's BLOG）……這個條子來找碴前後六至七次，一直來找碴，反正他就是決心要我們一群志工難看到底，顯示他〔大人〕的威風． 這張是恁祖嬤第三次站在旁邊一直拿著相機對準他，他也老大不爽我在〔青〕我，反正誰怕誰，恁祖嬤就是看不慣這種看門狗的作風．對面亂台一百多天的暴 民紅衫軍一個屁也不敢吭，但對手無寸鐵低聲下氣的又沒犯罪的台灣人，卻是這種耍流氓的嘴臉，如此兩樣對待方式，這種惡行惡狀如果不拿出來分享實在可惜． 其實當天還有好幾個精彩鏡頭與對話，很可惜恁祖嬤沒有即時錄影錄音存證，把那些精彩畫面給錄下．當時，我們有幾位志工軍發揮恁北跟恁祖嬤的精神，出 來跟這位條子嗆聲，尤其是同修贊儀跟敏哲兩位超強的恁祖嬤，內容實在精彩．若是有人將這片錄影整理出來後，再好好上傳到YOUTUBE去，讓全世界認識認 識這位台北市警察５０７１ 台灣鄉親，未來反搜證的工具隨時準備好：ＤＶ，數位相機，攝影式手機，只要能留下畫面的通通隨身攜帶，為了維護自身安全，保障我們的人權，與陳水扁留給台灣人的民主價值．忍讓紅衫軍暴民當年被糟蹋的民主精神，現在通通一件一件回報台灣人的時候到了．
| |
2008年9月4日 星期四
908台灣國運動
升起台灣旗．守護台灣國 列印
新聞報導 - 大地之聲 海洋之聲 護台聯盟
作者 908台灣國運動
2008/09/01, Monday
升起台灣旗．守護台灣國文宣
升起台灣旗．守護台灣國文宣
時間：2008年9月7日（日）14:00-17:00
地點：台中市228公園（台中路、興大路口）
主題：升起台灣旗．守護台灣國
908 台灣國運動是一個超越族群與政黨，為追求社會公平、正義、自由、民主的國家運動團體，咱的終極目標是正名、制憲，促使台灣能早日參與國際事務、成為一個主權獨立的正常國家。雖然520馬英九上台後罔顧人民生計、全力傾中、去台灣化，但908台灣國運動誓言「風愈大阮愈嘜走」，因此於今年5月25日經全國幹部會議決定重整旗鼓，依民主程序推選11位決策委員，採集體領導之方式進行組織改造工作，並將總部由台北遷移至台中縣豐原市，同時於本日進行移交儀式，但在台北仍設有聯絡處，由執行長吳葉燈圳負責在台北地區的對外窗口， (地址與電話如附註)。目前我們在全國有42個分會，在總顧問辜寬敏先生的鼓勵下，我們為確保台灣主權將動員萬人參加830「百日怒吼‧全民站出來」大遊行。
908台灣國運動主張日本於1951年9月 8日在舊金山和約中正式宣布放棄台灣主權，台灣主權從此屬於台灣人民，台灣國隱然已成形；9月8日就是台灣主權的紀念日，是台灣人的國慶日。今年，我們決定於9月7日(星期日)的下午2:28同步在台中市228公園及高雄市前鎮區瑞豐國小對面三角公園舉辦「守護台灣升旗典禮」，9月8日下午2:28於台北凱達格蘭大道也同樣舉辦一場升旗典禮，慶祝台灣人的國慶日。面臨台灣存亡的關鍵時刻，我們呼籲熱愛台灣的台灣人勇敢站出來，共同為確保台灣主權而共襄盛舉。
附註： 908台灣國運動總部─謝英源(決策會召集人)
地址：420台中縣豐原市圓環西路194號
電話：04-2513-0656 傳真：04-2529-9686
908台灣國運動台北聯絡處─吳葉燈圳執行長
地址：420台北縣淡水鎮英專路178號9樓
電話：02-2621-9576 傳真：02-2621-7381
行動電話：0927-535-899
908台灣國運動
總顧問 辜寬敏先生暨全體決策委員
2008年8月19日 敬啟
最後更新 ( 2008/09/01, Monday )
王獻極辦公室不屬於908台灣國運動團體 列印
新聞報導 - 網路報馬仔
作者 【代發】908台灣國辦公室
2008/09/03, Wednesday
908台灣國運動
聲明：台灣國王獻極辦公室不屬於908台灣國運動團體
908台灣國運動團體五月25日經全國幹部會議進行組織改造，決議依民主程序採取集體領導方式，推選11位委員組成決策委員會，為本社團最高決策機構。
908台灣國運動訂於9月7日下午2:28分同步在台中市228公園及高雄前鎮區瑞豐國小旁三角公園，兩地舉辦【升起台灣旗‧守護台灣國】活動。歡迎台灣國主人踴躍參加。
另本社團對於「台灣國王獻極辦公室」9月8日在台北舉辦的升旗典禮抱以肯定的態度，但特此聲明王獻極辦公室舉辦之升旗典禮與908台灣國運動無關。
908台灣國運動決策委員會
2008年9月3日
908台灣國運動「重新出發」記者會﹝新聞稿﹞
時間：2008年7月1日上午11點
地點：台北市台大校友會館(濟南路一段2-1號) 3A室
908台灣國運動是一個超越族群、超越黨派，為追求社會公平正義、民主自由、保護生態、照顧弱勢的社會運動團體。總統大選期間我們幸悉謝長廷說要「和解共生」，馬英九說「死後骨灰也要埋在台灣」覺得台灣有救了，因此我們即於2月1日停止運作。豈料馬先生3月22日到現在僅100天，先派遣蕭萬長、江炳坤、吳伯雄到中國獻媚，假借三通、直航之名行出賣台灣主權之實，就職後更枉顧農民、勞工等弱勢團體之生活抬高物價，民不聊生，極盡去台灣化之能事與清算鬥爭之手段，接著將引進人民幣在台灣通用，陸資可進場台灣股市。如今，我們才曉得馬先生選前講「一切都準備好了」原來是「一國兩制，終極統一」都準備好了。
908台灣國運動目前在全國有42個分會，全體同仁覺得馬先生選前講的攏是假的，因此我們於5月25日召開全國幹部會議決議將重新出發，採取集體領導之方式繼續為維護台灣主權與自由民主而繼續奮鬥。
歷年來台灣民主先進的犧牲與奉獻才有今天的自由成果，但眼看著馬英九執政後的諸項政策，已暗示將把台灣帶回兩蔣時代專制、獨裁的假民主社會。台灣人察覺到恐怖的陰影已籠罩在天邊，因此我們每天都接到民眾的呼喚電話，詢問我們何時才要帶領他們走上街頭；908台灣國歷年來雖有街頭運動的經驗，但我們的力量是有限的，所以我們衷心的期盼台灣民主大老能早日出面整合所有民主社團、匯集人民的力量、監督親中的政府與一黨獨大的立法院，促其堅持台灣主權並維護人民享有自由民主的權利，儘早完成台灣正名、制憲的歷史性任務。
另外，我們為著節省經費已於6月9日將總部遷移台中，但在台北仍設有聯絡處，由執行長吳葉燈圳先生負責，詳細地址電話如下。
總部
地址：420台中縣豐原市圓環西路194號
電話：04-2513-0656
傳真：04-2529-9686
台北聯絡處─吳葉燈圳
行動電話：0927-535-899
傳真：02-2621-7381
908台灣國運動決策委員會 敬啟
延伸閱讀：
升起台灣旗．守護台灣國
908台灣國運動網站
最後更新 ( 2008/09/04, Thursday )
關閉視窗
王獻極辦公室不屬於908台灣國運動團體 列印
新聞報導 - 網路報馬仔
作者 【代發】908台灣國辦公室
2008/09/03, Wednesday
908台灣國運動
聲明：台灣國王獻極辦公室不屬於908台灣國運動團體
908台灣國運動團體五月25日經全國幹部會議進行組織改造，決議依民主程序採取集體領導方式，推選11位委員組成決策委員會，為本社團最高決策機構。
908台灣國運動訂於9月7日下午2:28分同步在台中市228公園及高雄前鎮區瑞豐國小旁三角公園，兩地舉辦【升起台灣旗‧守護台灣國】活動。歡迎台灣國主人踴躍參加。
另本社團對於「台灣國王獻極辦公室」9月8日在台北舉辦的升旗典禮抱以肯定的態度，但特此聲明王獻極辦公室舉辦之升旗典禮與908台灣國運動無關。
908台灣國運動決策委員會
2008年9月3日
908台灣國運動「重新出發」記者會﹝新聞稿﹞
時間：2008年7月1日上午11點
地點：台北市台大校友會館(濟南路一段2-1號) 3A室
908台灣國運動是一個超越族群、超越黨派，為追求社會公平正義、民主自由、保護生態、照顧弱勢的社會運動團體。總統大選期間我們幸悉謝長廷說要「和解共生」，馬英九說「死後骨灰也要埋在台灣」覺得台灣有救了，因此我們即於2月1日停止運作。豈料馬先生3月22日到現在僅100天，先派遣蕭萬長、江炳坤、吳伯雄到中國獻媚，假借三通、直航之名行出賣台灣主權之實，就職後更枉顧農民、勞工等弱勢團體之生活抬高物價，民不聊生，極盡去台灣化之能事與清算鬥爭之手段，接著將引進人民幣在台灣通用，陸資可進場台灣股市。如今，我們才曉得馬先生選前講「一切都準備好了」原來是「一國兩制，終極統一」都準備好了。
908台灣國運動目前在全國有42個分會，全體同仁覺得馬先生選前講的攏是假的，因此我們於5月25日召開全國幹部會議決議將重新出發，採取集體領導之方式繼續為維護台灣主權與自由民主而繼續奮鬥。
歷年來台灣民主先進的犧牲與奉獻才有今天的自由成果，但眼看著馬英九執政後的諸項政策，已暗示將把台灣帶回兩蔣時代專制、獨裁的假民主社會。台灣人察覺到恐怖的陰影已籠罩在天邊，因此我們每天都接到民眾的呼喚電話，詢問我們何時才要帶領他們走上街頭；908台灣國歷年來雖有街頭運動的經驗，但我們的力量是有限的，所以我們衷心的期盼台灣民主大老能早日出面整合所有民主社團、匯集人民的力量、監督親中的政府與一黨獨大的立法院，促其堅持台灣主權並維護人民享有自由民主的權利，儘早完成台灣正名、制憲的歷史性任務。
另外，我們為著節省經費已於6月9日將總部遷移台中，但在台北仍設有聯絡處，由執行長吳葉燈圳先生負責，詳細地址電話如下。
總部
地址：420台中縣豐原市圓環西路194號
電話：04-2513-0656
傳真：04-2529-9686
台北聯絡處─吳葉燈圳
行動電話：0927-535-899
傳真：02-2621-7381
908台灣國運動決策委員會 敬啟
延伸閱讀：
升起台灣旗．守護台灣國
908台灣國運動網站
最後更新 ( 2008/09/04, Thursday )
關閉視窗
王獻極辦公室不屬於908台灣國運動團體 列印
新聞報導 - 網路報馬仔
作者 【代發】908台灣國辦公室
2008/09/03, Wednesday
908台灣國運動
聲明：台灣國王獻極辦公室不屬於908台灣國運動團體
908台灣國運動團體五月25日經全國幹部會議進行組織改造，決議依民主程序採取集體領導方式，推選11位委員組成決策委員會，為本社團最高決策機構。
908台灣國運動訂於9月7日下午2:28分同步在台中市228公園及高雄前鎮區瑞豐國小旁三角公園，兩地舉辦【升起台灣旗‧守護台灣國】活動。歡迎台灣國主人踴躍參加。
另本社團對於「台灣國王獻極辦公室」9月8日在台北舉辦的升旗典禮抱以肯定的態度，但特此聲明王獻極辦公室舉辦之升旗典禮與908台灣國運動無關。
908台灣國運動決策委員會
2008年9月3日
908台灣國運動「重新出發」記者會﹝新聞稿﹞
時間：2008年7月1日上午11點
地點：台北市台大校友會館(濟南路一段2-1號) 3A室
908台灣國運動是一個超越族群、超越黨派，為追求社會公平正義、民主自由、保護生態、照顧弱勢的社會運動團體。總統大選期間我們幸悉謝長廷說要「和解共生」，馬英九說「死後骨灰也要埋在台灣」覺得台灣有救了，因此我們即於2月1日停止運作。豈料馬先生3月22日到現在僅100天，先派遣蕭萬長、江炳坤、吳伯雄到中國獻媚，假借三通、直航之名行出賣台灣主權之實，就職後更枉顧農民、勞工等弱勢團體之生活抬高物價，民不聊生，極盡去台灣化之能事與清算鬥爭之手段，接著將引進人民幣在台灣通用，陸資可進場台灣股市。如今，我們才曉得馬先生選前講「一切都準備好了」原來是「一國兩制，終極統一」都準備好了。
908台灣國運動目前在全國有42個分會，全體同仁覺得馬先生選前講的攏是假的，因此我們於5月25日召開全國幹部會議決議將重新出發，採取集體領導之方式繼續為維護台灣主權與自由民主而繼續奮鬥。
歷年來台灣民主先進的犧牲與奉獻才有今天的自由成果，但眼看著馬英九執政後的諸項政策，已暗示將把台灣帶回兩蔣時代專制、獨裁的假民主社會。台灣人察覺到恐怖的陰影已籠罩在天邊，因此我們每天都接到民眾的呼喚電話，詢問我們何時才要帶領他們走上街頭；908台灣國歷年來雖有街頭運動的經驗，但我們的力量是有限的，所以我們衷心的期盼台灣民主大老能早日出面整合所有民主社團、匯集人民的力量、監督親中的政府與一黨獨大的立法院，促其堅持台灣主權並維護人民享有自由民主的權利，儘早完成台灣正名、制憲的歷史性任務。
另外，我們為著節省經費已於6月9日將總部遷移台中，但在台北仍設有聯絡處，由執行長吳葉燈圳先生負責，詳細地址電話如下。
總部
地址：420台中縣豐原市圓環西路194號
電話：04-2513-0656
傳真：04-2529-9686
台北聯絡處─吳葉燈圳
行動電話：0927-535-899
傳真：02-2621-7381
908台灣國運動決策委員會 敬啟
延伸閱讀：
升起台灣旗．守護台灣國
908台灣國運動網站
最後更新 ( 2008/09/04, Thursday )
關閉視窗
State to state’ theory is dead, Ma says
Up Next
‘State to state’ theory is dead, Ma says
BACK IN TIME?: In an interview with a Mexican newspaper, the president said the government should not waste time and effort trying to resolve the sovereignty issue
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 1
The relationship between Taiwan and China is not one between two countries, but a type of special relationship across the Taiwan Strait, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has told a Mexican newspaper, in a marked departure from former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) special state-to-state model of relations.
“Basically, we don’t think the relationship between the two sides is one between two Chinas, but a special one,” Ma said in an interview with Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26, the Chinese text of which was released by the Presidential Office yesterday.
During the interview, the reporter asked questions in Spanish and Ma replied in Mandarin.
Ma said the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) does not allow the existence of another country on its territory, nor does the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
“The relationship is a special one, but that relationship is not between two countries,” he was quoted as saying in the transcript. “While it is unlikely that double recognition of both sides of the Taiwan Strait can be obtained from any foreign country, we must maintain a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Beijing and at the same time we would like to see both sides enjoy dignity in the international community. This is our goal.”
Ma said that while both sides could not resolve the dispute of Taiwan’s sovereignty, Taipei and Beijing reached a consensus in 1992.
Under the so-called “1992 consensus,” Ma said each side accepted the principle of “one China” but agreed to have its own interpretation of what it meant.
While there were no immediate answers for the sovereignty issue, Ma said the government should not waste time and effort trying to resolve it. Instead, the government should focus its energy on more urgent issues that require both sides to attend to. Such issues were what his administration has been pushing, he said.
Ma said that while the ROC left China in 1949, it did not disappear from the surface of the Earth. He hoped both sides of the Strait would refrain from engaging in malicious competition on the diplomatic front.
As each side maintained relations with its own diplomatic allies, they could develop non-diplomatic relations with each other’s allies.
“Such peaceful coexistence is the most ideal way for interactions between the two sides,” he was quoted as saying in the transcript.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that the cross-strait relationship was not one between two countries but a special one defined by the 11th amendment to the ROC Constitution.
The article describes Taiwan as the “free region” and China as the “mainland region.” Wang said the two regions are equal and have two ruling authorities whose relationship is not between the central and local governments but one that is equal between the “Taiwan region” and the “mainland region.”
Wang said that while Ma has redefined cross-strait relations and proposed to assert sovereignty and shelve disputes, Ma’s policy was not a concession or surrender. Although both sides have different claims over their territory and the disputes over sovereignty are difficult to resolve, Wang said the administration would protect the sovereignty of the ROC, insist on the “three nos” and continue to extend goodwill to Beijing.
The “three nos” refers to no discussion of unification with Beijing during Ma’s presidency, no pursuit of de jure Taiwan independence and no use of military force to resolve the Taiwan issue.
Ma says achieving goal of ‘6-3-3’ will take eight years
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 1
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said his “6-3-3” campaign pledge was unlikely to be realized anytime soon, but he hoped it could be achieved by 2016 — at the end of two terms in office.
The “6-3-3” economic policy refers to an annual economic growth rate of 6 percent, an annual GDP per capita of US$30,000 by 2016 and an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent per year.
During an interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26 — the Chinese transcript of which was released by the Presidential Office yesterday — Ma said it would be difficult to reach the goal of 6 percent annual growth rate now or within the next six months or a year, taking into account the state of the global economy.
During the interview, the reporter asked questions in Spanish and Ma replied in Mandarin.
Ma said that while the economic growth rate was estimated at 4.6 percent this year, the unemployment rate remained at 3.8 percent and his administration would like to lower it to less than 3 percent.
“The election promises still stand, but it will take longer to deliver them,” he was quoted as saying in the transcript.
“Eventually, we hope to see the economic growth rate reach 6 percent, GDP per capita achieve US$30,000 and the jobless rate drop to less than 3 percent in 2016, the final year of my second term in office,” he said.
To stimulate the economy and increase job opportunities, Ma said his administration would push the “i-Taiwan 12 construction projects,” which should cost US$120 billion and take eight years to complete.
The government will continue to deregulate the economy, lower tax rates and build Taiwan into an asset management center in the Asia-Pacific region, an innovation center, an operation headquarters for Taiwanese businesspeople and regional operation center for foreign investors, he said.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that the government would try to realize the “6-3-3” goals by 2016, despite the deteriorating global economy.
Wang said Ma proposed more than 400 platforms during the campaign.
While the “i-Taiwan 12 construction projects” would be an eight-year project, the government has already delivered on its promises of cross-strait weekend charter flights, increasing the number of Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan and expanding the “mini three transportation links,” Wang said.
Researchers build green scooter that runs on air
By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 2
Shen Yu-ta, a doctoral student at National Central University, rides an eco-friendly scooter at a press conference yesterday in Taipei.
PHOTO: CNA
A National Central University professor and student have succeeded in creating a motorcycle that runs on air.
At a press conference in Taipei yesterday, Hwang Yean-ren (黃衍任), a mechanical engineer, said they had created a prototype scooter by removing the fuel tank from a motorcycle they had obtained from a junkyard and replacing its engine with an air motor.
The air motor is driven by high-pressure air coming from a compressed air bottle attached to the side of the scooter, Hwang said.
The research team is the first in the world to develop an air-powered scooter, Hwang said.
Citing the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), Hwang said the number of scooters in Taiwan had increased by 4.2 million to 14.2 million since 1993.
An EPA survey this year showed that about 53 percent of respondents complained about air pollution, and 58.1 percent attributed it to scooters, he said.
Shen Yu-ta (沈毓達), the doctoral student who participated in the research, said their prototype could travel at a maximum speed of 30kph for 1.2km using a 10-liter bottle of compressed air.
Hwang said the prototype would be able to travel at a higher speed if the structure of the motorcycle were refined to accommodate a larger amount of high-pressure air.
Hwang said that more tests are needed to improve the efficiency of the prototype and reduce the amount of noise it creates.
Taiwan Society receives inquiry letter over rally
CIVIL RESTRICTION: The Ministry of the Interior received a complaint that said the social group’s rally may have been in violation of the Civil Associations Act
By Loa Iok-Sin
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 3
The Ministry of the Interior (MOI) yesterday rebutted accusations from the Taiwan Society and others that it was breaching freedom of expression by issuing a letter of inquiry to the group that organized a major rally held last Saturday.
The rally drew tens of thousands of participants protesting the government’s cross-strait policies, and called on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty, save the economy and help to accelerate the adoption of “sunshine bills.”
“We received a letter from the MOI on Monday saying that someone filed a complaint with them that said [the Taiwan Society] may have violated the Civil Associations Act [人民團體法] by organizing the Aug. 30 rally and asked them to reply within 10 days,” Taiwan Society secretary-general Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) told the Taipei Times via telephone.
The person who filed the complaint said the Taiwan Society may have violated the law because the organization is registered as a social group, which could mean it may not engage in political activities.
“But we applied and received a rally permit from the appropriate government agencies, and the purpose of the rally was about social interests,” Lo said. “Rallies are a way for people to express their opinions. What the MOI is doing to us makes us feel that they’re trying to get revenge.”
The Democratic Progressive Party’s Department of Culture and Information director Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) also criticized the MOI, saying that “It is ridiculous to say that a social group may not hold rallies on political themes — there is simply no such restriction in the Civil Associations Act.”
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Justin Chou (周守訓) echoed the view, and said that the way the ministry was handling the complaint would “remind people of the authoritarian rule during the White Terror.”
In response, director of the ministry’s Department of Social Affairs Tseng Chung-ming (曾中明) told a press conference yesterday afternoon that asking for an explanation from the Taiwan Society was just part of standard procedure.
“We understand that our friends at the Taiwan Society may not feel very comfortable after receiving the letter, however, we ask for your understanding that handling complaints from people is an unavoidable responsibility of the Department of Social Affairs,” Tseng said.
However, Tseng also said that there may have been some problems with the way the issue was handled.
“We will humbly accept criticism and opinions from all, and will take care of similar issues more flexibly to meet public expectations,” he said.
Taiwan’s Ministry of Surrender
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 8
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ reaction to various diplomatic developments is leading many to question the validity of the so-called “diplomatic truce” touted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and wonder whether it might not be a pretense for a surrender of sovereignty.
The latest example came in remarks by the ministry earlier this week in response to BirdLife International’s decision to change the Taiwanese chapter’s name from “Taiwan” to “Chinese.”
Most likely the result of pressure from Beijing, the non-governmental organization (NGO), a wild bird protection agency, changed the Taiwanese chapter’s name from Wild Bird Federation Taiwan to Chinese Wild Bird Federation.
In response, ministry spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said on Monday that because this organization is an NGO, the ministry could not interfere in its decision to change the name, adding that the group had been called Chinese Wild Bird Federation when it was established in 1988 and had only changed its name in 2000.
The ministry’s failure to act is dispiriting.
If rationalizing inaction is policy at the ministry, then Taiwan might as well abandon plans to join international organizations in a way that would uphold its dignity — that is, under its real name — because one thing is certain: Beijing is not about to stop applying pressure on global organizations, governmental or otherwise, to strike the name “Taiwan” from each and every one of them.
Beijing’s oppression of Taiwan is nothing new and at every turn it has endeavored to shoot down Taipei’s efforts to join organizations that require statehood. But if the ministry’s latest stance is any indication of future developments, all those who have worked to create space for Taiwan by joining NGOs under a name worthy of the nation have been served one hard kick in the guts.
Rather than criticizing Beijing for its relentless pressure on others to downgrade the status of Taiwan — something that any party even remotely interested in reciprocating Taipei’s recent efforts at peacemaking would have done — the ministry bent over backwards and used doublespeak to defend China while leaving Taiwanese NGOs in the ditch.
Active diplomatic work is needed to ensure Taiwan’s existence and rightful place in the world. However, when a country’s foreign ministry sounds more like a Ministry of Surrender than a government body in charge of protecting the country’s interests abroad — especially when that country faces a threat to its very existence — it is only a matter of time before the name “Taiwan” drops off the map altogether.
Ironically, what our spineless Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn’t seem to realize is that if it continues in this direction, it could eventually find itself without a job, or at best become a mere provincial government agency with little say over international affairs.
Surely this cannot be what the hundreds of ministry officials who worked hard to make a career in international diplomacy are hoping for.
Ads raise questions about democracy
By Lo Huei-Wen 羅慧雯
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 8
The Chinese National Federation of Industries (CNFI) recently ran three controversial TV commercials urging tax cuts to stimulate the economy and arguing for the existence of an inverse relationship between tax rates and economic development.
The commercials have resulted in protests from the “fair tax alliance,” which on Aug. 27 asked the National Communications Commission (NCC) to ban such “false” commercials. But the NCC, citing freedom of speech, said the advertisements were legal.
So far, the debate has for the most part limited itself to the rationale of the proposed tax cuts and whether the NCC should restrict commercials for such “non-commodities.”
Supporters of the tax cuts have argued that they are an emerging trend globally, citing the policy of former US president Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980s to back their claims. But they have purposely ignored the reviews of Reagan’s tax-cut policy that were later issued. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith severely attacked the policy in his book, The Culture of Contentment, arguing that tax cuts had led to excessive accumulation of private assets, while public interests were sacrificed and environmental protection and social welfare were overlooked.
Another economist, Lester Thurow, also commented on the policy in his book The Future of Capitalism, saying that tax cuts have not only widened the income gap, but also exacerbated social tensions. Thurow said that if the problem were allowed to continue, capitalism and democracy could be headed for a confrontation, which could eventually threaten the spirit of democratic politics. Indeed, looking back at the political and economic developments of the past decade or so, money politics has already risen as communist regimes collapsed one after the other. However, largely unnoticed was the fact that the very capitalistic democracy that was used to confront communism had also waned.
The most important confrontation between capitalism and democracy lies in tax policies. A government always has to balance economic development and social justice in its tax system, a thorny issue that has haunted every country.
Let us examine this from the perspective of broadcasting policy.
It is a well-known fact that media can affect government policies. Broadcasting policy is therefore another field on which the confrontation between capitalism and democracy will play out. Without a democratic media, there would be no democratic countries.
The CNFI is spending lots of money running the commercials, which quote British prime minister Winston Churchill and the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman to highlight the necessity of tax cuts. The way the commercials have been packaged gives them a veneer of objectivity and professionalism, but they have simplified the complex issue of tax policy. And more importantly, anonymous commercials may distort the issues, because their producers cannot be held to account. However, the authorities are unable to interfere with the commercials, as they are legal.
In future, an increased number of advertisements seeking to monopolize the “market of ideas” will appear. This will highlight the contradictions that exist between capitalism and democracy in the media and it will be up to the media to resolve these contradictions.
The media should play its role as a public tool with dexterity. When controversy arises, the media should bring its function as a public forum into full play, so that those without great amounts of capital can also make their voices heard. They should also promote communication and rational dialogue between people who hold different views. This is how we can resolve the contradictions that exist between capitalism and democracy.
The commercials touch on fundamental issues. Unfortunately, they have yet to receive attention from political talk shows, as the media have ignored this topic in the pursuit of higher ratings. The lack of discussion on political talk shows is aimed at balancing the effects of this commercial and therefore makes these shows accomplices of the federation. The value political talk shows attach to ratings is not a surprise and the reason behind this is perhaps the result of commercial TV stations’ capitalistic inclinations.
Thanks to the alliance’s recent protests to the NCC, the matter has now entered the public sphere, which has led to discussion in the print media. A call-in show on Public Television Service (PTS) also invited people with different views to discuss tax reform. Given its non-commercial status, PTS was in a position to freely promote diversity of opinion.
Let us hope that political talk shows on commercial TV will learn from PTS and not become mere mouthpieces for capitalist and oftentimes non-democratic interests.
Lo Huei-wen is an assistant communications management professor at Shih Hsin University.
Ma’s non-bid for the UN is anything but meaningful
Gerrit Van Der Wees
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 8
On Aug. 15, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) launched its version of the annual bid to join the UN. But instead of knocking on the front door and asking for membership — as was done last year by former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) Democratic Progressive Party government — Ma was meekly asking for “meaningful participation” in UN agencies.
By using this approach, Ma and his administration are undermining Taiwan’s position on a number of fronts.
First, it opens the door for China to claim Taiwan as its subsidiary; second, it endangers Taiwan’s sovereignty because it does not take its status as a free and democratic nation as a starting point; and third, it gives the US and other Western countries an excuse to maintain their “do nothing” approach and allow China to have its way in international organizations.
On the first point: Ma’s approach is to downplay the UN bid and then rely on Beijing’s “goodwill and flexibility” to allow some sort of participation at the WHO’s deliberative body, the World Health Assembly.
But what is the chance that Beijing will move on that issue? China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Chairman Wang Yi (王毅) has already said that China will never agree to WHO membership for Taiwan.
So the only thing left will be a pretzel-like construction whereby information on SARS, avian flu and other health threats would be channeled to Taiwan via Beijing.
This kind of participation is meaningless.
On the second point: Ma’s fuzzy approach seeks to sweep the issue of Taiwan’s status under the rug. While this may be expedient in the short term, it amounts to a strategy of hiding one’s head in the sand. Taiwan’s case to the international community would be aided immensely if Taipei would clearly lay out its bid for membership as an equal, free and democratic member.
Ma’s approach does the opposite and undermines Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Clear arguments in Taiwan’s favor do exist.
In a recent book by Peter Chow titled The One China Dilemma, Taiwanese professors Huang-chih Chiang (姜皇池) and Jau-yuan Hwang (黃昭元) of National Taiwan University provide an excellent legal appraisal of the statehood of Taiwan and show that under international law, Taiwan meets all criteria for statehood. They conclude that the lack of recognition by major Western powers is thus based more on political than legal considerations.
On the third point: While Chen’s front-door approach to UN membership may have made Western governments uneasy, it did appeal to their conscience in the same way appeals from Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938, before being invaded by Germany, made the West feel uneasy.
The subsequent developments in 1938 and 1939 showed how wrong it was for the US and Western Europe to look the other way and ignore the pleas of Czechs and Poles.
Ma’s approach has echoes of a modern-day Neville Chamberlain: He pretends to be working for “peace in our time,” but his actions and policies are strengthening a repressive giant’s claims on a democratic neighbor.
Ma likes to describe his policies as “flexible and pragmatic,” but he is giving pragmatism a bad name. His policies are an example of expediency rather than principle.
Chances are his UN “bid” will go nowhere and in the process risk undermining Taiwan’s position in the international community.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Up Next
2008年9月3日 星期三
China will determine the future of Asia
Published on Taipei Times
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/09/03/2003422112
Beijing ambitions stir uncertainty
By Sushil Seth
Wednesday, Sep 03, 2008, Page 8
You have to worry about a country that condemns two of its elderly people, aged 77 and 79 (one of them virtually blind), to “re-education through labor” for one year. Their crime was to seek permission to protest (in officially demarcated protest sites) against their eviction from their homes at Qianqiao, near Tiananmen Square. These two frail women were seeking due compensation for their eviction. If this sort of thing can happen right under the glare of the Olympics in Beijing, one can only imagine the fate of the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalized when nobody is looking.
With such lack of compassion when dealing with its own people, China’s ruling oligarchy would be hard pressed to show much consideration in their dealings with the rest of the world. This is pertinent when examining China’s political and strategic goals in the Asia-Pacific region. It suggests a very ruthless political streak.
Beijing swears that its rise will be peaceful and mutually beneficial for all concerned. And that they are doing it in a benign environment. China is “benign” not because it is a peaceful power but because it is largely getting its way thanks to a juxtaposition of favorable factors.
First, its rapid economic growth has created an image among its Asian neighbors of a powerful country that means business politically, economically and strategically. They are, therefore, adjusting to the new perceived reality of Chinese power by coming to terms with it.
Second, the US over-stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan has created an impression that the former might be retreating from Asia. Hence, China’s neighbors increasingly believe that they have no choice but to heed and accommodate a rising China.
Third, China’s hesitance to use military power is also dictated by its limitations. Take Taiwan, for instance. Beijing has been preparing to take it by force for many years, but has repeatedly hesitated to go all the way. It is because, as Jonathan Pollack of the US Naval War College believes, their generals are probably a long way from feeling confident of a successful outcome.
Elaborating on this during a lecture at the University of Sydney, Pollack reportedly said: “China has not fought a war in 30 years [since the last one against Vietnam over Cambodia, with not very flattering results]. Not only that, any kind of use of force directed against Taiwan would be qualitatively different … The risks therefore are much higher: the risks of failure.”
In any case, with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) regime sending accommodative signals, China might not need to test its resolve in this matter. In other words, Beijing seems to be pretty much getting what it wants without having to use force, though it did come quite close to using force against Taiwan in the mid-1990s, and with Japan in the East China Sea.
Because of its relative success in pushing its agenda of regional primacy, an impression is gaining currency that the present century belongs to China. In other words, Beijing will be able to operate at will in the Asia-Pacific region.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has sought to dispel this impression of China’s omnipotence. In a paper titled, “The new American realism,” in Foreign Affairs (July/August 2008), Rice wrote: “Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too — and perhaps to an even greater degree — will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian States.”
In her view, this is the “defining geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it.”
In other words, the US is going to remain fully involved in Asia and is not going anywhere.
To elaborate her point, she said: “We enjoy a strong, democratic alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan — an economic giant that is emerging as a ‘normal’ state [to exercise a commensurate political and strategic role], capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond.”
Rice has thus strongly endorsed the validity and vigor of the US alliance with Japan as a counterpoint to China. As well as Japan, Rice also made a point of declaring that “the United States has a vital stake in India’s rise to global power and prosperity, and [that] relations between the two countries have never been stronger and broader.”
The growing impression that China will be the determining power in Asia (to the exclusion of others) in the present century is unwarranted. In Southeast Asia, for instance, Indonesia is emerging as a stable democracy likely to impact on the contours of a new regional architecture. At the same time, as Rice has indicated, the US is starting to recognize the diffusion of power in the region.
This makes it “incumbent on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant differences,” as on Taiwan.
Pollack has also noted that the US is slowly recognizing the emergence of a new multipolar world order. In Asia, with Japan still in the US camp, Washington will need to deal with two “unequivocally autonomous powers” (China and India) to create some kind of trilateral understanding.
Pollack doesn’t believe that India will become a US ally. But China will continue to stake its claim for political primacy in Asia, which the US is unlikely to recognize. This would cause tensions between China and the US, independent of the Taiwan factor. China’s military build-up, with annual double-digit increases in its defense budget, is causing concern.
As Rice pointed out in her article: “The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China’s rapid development of high-tech weapons systems … China’s lack of transparency about its military spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion.”
For instance, China’s new underground nuclear submarine base near Sanya, on Hainan island, is a serious development. As Jane’s Defence Weekly has commented, “This development, so close to the Southeast Asian sea lanes so vital to the economies of Asia, can only cause concern far beyond these straits.”
This development, combined with China’s steady overall military build-up, points to Beijing’s medium and long-term ambition to dominate the region. This ambition is likely to meet resistance, thus creating strategic uncertainty in the region.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Copyright © 1999-2008 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
