Listen to the voice

Government defends Ma on ‘6-3-3’
　

ON THE BACK FOOT: As the Presidential Office defended the president, opposition lawmakers were calling for a public apology, a Cabinet reshuffle and a change of premier
　

By Ko Shu-Ling, Shih Hsiu-Chuan, Flora Wang AND Meggie Lu
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, Sep 05, 2008, Page 1

The Presidential Office yesterday defended President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “6-3-3” economic policy, saying it was announced before the global economic downturn, that Ma had not abandoned it and that it would apply until 2016.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chih (王郁琦) said that the administration would strive to achieve its goals in spite of the global economic slump.

“2016 is the year by which we plan to achieve all three goals. It does not mean that we have to wait until 2016 to accomplish them all,” he said. “As long as the global economy recovers, it is possible that we can achieve some of the goals earlier.”

Wang made the remarks in response to media inquiries about Ma’s comments that his “6-3-3” campaign pledge was unlikely to be realized anytime soon, but he hoped it could be achieved by 2016 — the end of a possible two terms in office.

The “6-3-3” economic policy refers to the goal of achieving annual GDP of 6 percent, average annual earnings of US$30,000 and an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent.

During an interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26 — the Chinese transcript of which was released by the Presidential Office on Wednesday — Ma said it would be difficult to reach the goal of 6 percent GDP now or within the next year because of the state of the global economy.

Wang yesterday said that Ma’s remarks were intended to bring to the public’s attention the deterioration of the global economy and to advise people to brace themselves for further economic difficulty.

Amid calls for Ma to reshuffle his Cabinet and to apologize for failing to deliver on his election promises, Wang refused to comment.

“We will do our best to reach the goals,” he said.

Wang said that Ma made more than 400 campaign promises and each has its own timetable.

Using the weekend cross-strait charter flights, the increase in the number of Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan and the expansion of the “small three links,” Wang said the administration had made good on its promise to implement them in July.

The “i-Taiwan 12 construction projects,” however, were an eight-year project, he said.

It was a misunderstanding that none of Ma’s election promises could be accomplished before 2016, Wang said.

When asked whether Ma would keep the promise he made during a presidential debate that he would donate half of his salary if he failed to reach the “6-3-3” goals by the end of his first term in office, Wang said that Ma had been referring to the goal of reaching US$30,000 annual GDP per capita by 2016 rather than all of the “6-3-3” goals by 2012.

Minister Without Portfolio Chen Tian-jy (陳添枝) said yesterday that the government did not view the recent slump in the domestic stock market as a signal of an economic downturn, but that the government would keep an eye on future fluctuations in stock prices.


The government would act should the stock market continue to fall “for abnormal reasons,” Chen told a press conference following the weekly Cabinet meeting, but he did not elaborate on what measures could be taken.

He said the decline in the stock market was a result of adjustments in the international funds’ portfolios following the US subprime mortgage crisis and not a loss of confidence in the economy.

Ma’s recent remarks that it would take eight years to achieve the “6-3-3” campaign pledge was the reason behind the recent slump in prices, Chen said.

Chen said that in the economic White Paper published during the presidential campaign, Ma vowed to invest NT$3.9 trillion (US$122.46 billion) over eight years in order to create 120,000 new job opportunities a year and push the growth rate up to 6 percent.

In the white paper, Ma said that his economic proposals would raise per capita income to US$20,000 by 2011 and to US$30,000 in 2016 and would reduce the unemployment rate to below 3 percent in four years, Chen said.

When questioned by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators William Lai (賴清德) and Wong Chin-chu (翁金珠) in the legislature’s plenary session on May 30, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) said that the Cabinet would resign if it could not achieve the goals in four years.

Executive Yuan Spokeswoman Vanessa Shih (史亞平) said that the Cabinet would make every effort to implement Ma’s economic policies.

Meanwhile, DPP legislators criticized Ma, saying that he had cheated voters and should apologize for failing to deliver and reshuffle his Cabinet.

“When Ma proposed his ‘6-3-3’ policy, he did not say that it would take eight years to accomplish. As a presidential term is four years, people expected results within four years,” DPP legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) said at a press conference.

“The people voted for Ma hoping for a better economy, but now that dream has gone. Instead Taiwan is facing economic regression and the government has no way to solve it,” DPP Department of Culture and Information Director Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said.

Ma owes the public an apology, the DPP caucus said, adding that he should consider naming a new premier capable of delivering on his campaign promises.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators defended Ma.

KMT caucus Secretary-General Chang Sho-wen (張碩文) said Ma did not intend to deceive the voters with his “6-3-3” policy and urged the public to give the administration more time.

KMT Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) praised Ma’s honesty.

“He modified his promise after realizing that there was a gap between [his] ideal and the reality ... He was facing the reality honestly,” she said.

When asked for comment, KMT Legislator Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁) expressed confidence Ma would reach his “6-3-3” goals within four to five years, saying that the increase in international crude oil prices and global inflation were expected to fall in the near future.

But KMT Legislator Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) said Ma should consider replacing Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) if his goals were not reached in four years.

Listen to the voice

Presidential Office defends Ma
　

CROSS-STRAIT STANCE: Spokesman Wang Yu-chi said both the Constitution and the law describe the relationship between Taiwan and China as constituting two regions
　

By Ko Shu-Ling,Shih Hsiu-Chuan, Flora Wang AND Meggie Lu
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, Sep 05, 2008, Page 3
　

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) did not denigrate the country’s sovereignty by describing the country’s relationship with China as “special across the Taiwan Strait” but not state-to-state, the Presidential Office said yesterday.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said that under the 11th amendment of the Constitution and the Statute Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), the relationship between Taiwan and China is one between two regions.

“It is between the “Taiwan region” and “mainland region,” he said. “The Republic of China [ROC] is an independent sovereign state. Although both sides cannot recognize each other, at least we manage not to deny each other.”

Wang denied that Ma’s theory would hurt the country’s sovereignty, saying that it was undeniable the ROC was an independent sovereignty and the relationship between the “Taiwan region” and the “mainland region” is an equal one.

Since it is an equal relationship, Wang said there was no downgrading of sovereignty.

The Constitution was enacted in China and was frozen in April 1948. Four months later it was replaced by the Temporary Provisions Effective during the Period of National Mobilization for the Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員勘亂時期臨時條款). The temporary provisions were abolished in May 1991 and the Constitution was reinstated.

Asked by the Taipei Times whether the Constitution was relevant to Taiwan’s current situation, Wang said that nobody has questioned its propriety and that the legitimacy of the ROC government comes from the Constitution.

“There is no doubt [that the Constitution is suitable for Taiwan],” he said. “Besides, several amendments have been made over the years.”

While both sides could not resolve the dispute of Taiwan’s sovereignty, Ma has proposed relying on the so-called “1992 consensus.” Under the “consensus,” Ma said each side accepted the principle of “one China” but agreed to have its own interpretation of what it meant. Many in Taiwan dispute the validity of the alleged consensus.

Asked how the government expected to resolve the sovereignty issue given such a dispute, Wang said the two sides must shelve controversial issues and begin talks on issues they both agree on.

DIFFERENCES SET ASIDE

The reason the administration could deliver on its promises of implementing cross-strait weekend charter flights, increase the number of Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan and expand the “mini three transportation links” was because both sides put aside their differences, Wang said.

While it remained to be seen whether Beijing would reciprocate the goodwill Ma has extended with his “non state-to-state” theory, Wang said Ma made it clear that the public must look at cross-strait relations from the perspective of the ROC Constitution and the Statute Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area.

Meanwhile, Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛), once a proponent of former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) “special state-to-state” theory of cross-strait relations, skirted questions yesterday about Ma denying the applicability of the theory.

PRESS CONFERENCE

Lai was bombarded with questions about Ma’s stance at a press conference held after the weekly Cabinet meeting.

Asked whether she preferred Lee or Ma’s theory and how she would interpret Ma’s stance, Lai repeated the principles Ma has set out about his policy.

“Everyone knows the Republic of China is an independent state, which is an established fact. Under the Constitution, what the Act Governing Relations between Peoples’ of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area stipulates were called the Taiwan area and the Mainland,” Lai said.

She stressed the government’s cross-strait policies were based on the three principles of “no unification, no independence and no use of force” to maintain cross-strait stability and pursue reconciliation.

Asked why Ma had decided to forgo the special state-to-state relationship if the ROC is an independent state, Lai said the government wanted to set aside politically complex and controversial issues in cross-strait relations.

“To advance cross-strait ties one should start with economic and pragmatic issues,” she said. “Shelving complicated and controversial issues will benefit the country.”

Approached by cable TV reporters after the press conference, Lai quickly left the room.

DPP LASHES OUT

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus attacked Ma yesterday for downgrading himself, saying it was outrageous he would blur the country’s sovereignty, and demanding he apologize to the public for his inappropriate interpretation of “district to district.”

“Whether in the name Republic of China or Taiwan, according to constitutional appendices and amendments, it is undeniable that we are a country where sovereignty belongs to the people,” DPP’s Department of Culture and Information director Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said.

“Since when did Taiwan become Taiwan district? Would Taiwan district have the right to join the UN and would it be necessary for Taiwan district to maintain diplomatic allies?” Cheng said.

“People are enraged,” DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) said.

“Ma’s statement is self-castrating ... If Ma thinks that by giving up sovereignty and lying low China will return the favor, he is wrong,” Tsai said.

Several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, however, praised Ma’s stance.

KMT caucus deputy secretary-general Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) dismissed the DPP’s criticism, saying Ma’s remarks were in line with the Constitution.

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), a KMT member, said it was meaningless for the nation to focus too much on the sovereignty issue and it was more important to deliberate on how to promote the economy and cross-strait relations.

Listen to the voice

Doublespeak hides Ma’s agenda

Friday, Sep 05, 2008, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wiped out almost 10 years of progress made under former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in one fell swoop last week when he told a Mexican newspaper that the relationship between Taiwan and China “is a special one, but not [one] between two countries.”

By turning back the clock to before Lee’s 1999 “state-to-state relations” declaration, Ma’s statement was a marked departure from his pre-election pledges to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty, a fact the Presidential Office was quick to “clarify.”

In the same interview, Ma also referred once again to the fictitious “1992 consensus,” saying that both sides of the Taiwan Strait had agreed to accept the “one China, different interpretations” model supposedly enshrined in this fabricated agreement.

He was wrong. At no time has Beijing said it subscribes to the so-called “consensus” and China’s outright rejection of the Ma government’s self-

deprecating UN bid two weeks ago is clear proof that Beijing will brook no deviation from its definition of the “one China” policy.

But while the rest of the world recognizes rejection when they hear it, the Presidential Office persists in trying to disguise a failure as a success, dismissing Beijing’s sharp rebuff as an “isolated incident.”

George Orwell could have been talking about the Ma government when, in his influential 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” he wrote “political speech [is] largely the defense of the indefensible and consists largely of ... sheer cloudy vagueness.”

The Ma administration has purposely played word games with national sovereignty in the belief that it can earn mutual goodwill from China. As Ma’s campaign promises were predicated on Beijing’s willingness to throw Taiwan a few crumbs from its economic banquet, the government has had no choice. Yet 100 days on, Ma has nothing to show for his government’s ingratiating behavior.

Although China may not be playing Ma’s game, “progress” on another front — unraveling the Taiwan consciousness that has flourished over the last decade or so — seems to be gathering momentum.

Ma may have promised to follow his “three noes” — no unification, no independence and no use of force — during his presidency, but his policies risk making Taiwan so reliant on its giant neighbor that the nation could eventually have no choice but to strike up some kind of union. No amount of flowery language can obscure the risks involved in the government’s actions.

In his essay, Orwell wrote: “When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”

Looking back, despite all Ma’s patriotic obfuscation in the lead up to election day, it should have been quite clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) that Ma and his party consider Taiwan a part of China, albeit the Republic of China and not the People’s Republic of China.

The cuttlefish may have spurted out enough ink to confuse people ahead of the presidential election in March, but with everything going wrong on the policy front, it will take quite a reserve of ink to last another three-and-a-half years.

Listen to the voice

Attendance at rally put DPP back on course
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Friday, Sep 05, 2008, Page 8

Last Saturday’s demonstration in Taipei drew more participants than the pan-blue camp had expected. Afterwards, every pan-blue politician played the numbers game trying to keep the attendance figure below 50,000 in an attempt to find a reason to ignore the demonstration and its demands.

Opinion was split in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on whether to participate in the demonstration, as it should be in a democratic party.

What was not normal, however, was the forceful opposition of those who did not want to participate in the demonstration. What happened?

From the start, those who opposed the demonstration were of the opinion that one shouldn’t be too quick to take to the streets, an opinion that was strengthened after former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) financial irregularities struck a blow to pan-green morale.

Indeed, protesters should not take to the streets without good cause, and a demonstration should only be organized when the organizers have a good grasp of the situation. This involves concern for public opinion as well as avoiding causing civic unrest, which could lead to a negative impression among the public.

However, when the public feels strongly about something but is being ignored by the government, politicians should represent the public in expressing their grievances. If public sentiment tends toward the extreme, politicians should engage in dialog and discuss the issue rather than remaining on the sidelines, criticizing.

Although the Taiwan Society was the nominal organizer of the demonstration, it would probably be more correct to say that the society had been pushed into organizing the rally by public pressure. The government’s domestic policies have failed, sparking public complaints, while its headlong rush to warm up ties with China has raised public concern. This is evident from listening to people calling in to political talk shows and by talking to people on the street.

But even if these factors could be ignored, the abnormal behavior of the stock market is further evidence that Taiwan is dealing with some major problems.

However, this was not why so many people took part in the demonstration. What drew most people to the rally was the Chen case. Not because they supported Chen, but because of the pan-blue camp’s excessive political manipulations of the case. People are fed up with such behavior, and they are worried that such manipulation is aimed at covering up the government’s failed political policies and might end up accelerating the decline of their standard of living and the nation’s weakening sovereignty.

The DPP should be congratulated for deciding to participate in the demonstration. What would the party’s future have looked like if the DPP kept its distance from the public? The active participation of most DPP officials and legislators demonstrated that they are still in touch with the public and understand their problems.

Hopefully legislative candidates who failed to be elected in the most recent elections will use their influence and continue to participate in these activities when Taiwan needs them. Elections are secondary, and the primary concern should be to consolidate public opinion.

DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has strong opinions and I don’t think she was forced into participating. Her soft approach has allowed her to successfully manage the attacks on the DPP, but inside that softness there is unyielding strength.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.