20100724 Chairman Ma and his drive for unification

Chairman Ma and his drive for unification

By James Wang 王景弘
Saturday, Jul 24, 2010, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is both president of Taiwan and chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). When it comes to the so-called Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which he has yet to fully explain to the Taiwanese public, he seems to be favoring the latter role. He recently bundled off former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to Beijing on his behalf to speak with Ma’s counterpart, Chinese President and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Wu’s remit was to convey Chairman Ma’s gratitude and to report his successful reconstruction of the party-state system, meaning he not only has his party, but also the public, under his thumb. Shades of Chairman Mao (毛澤東), surely?

Ma is happy to send politicians without any official position on official errands while he himself orchestrates affairs. His version of a China policy is essentially allowing his party to become a political appendage of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, doing the bidding of the Chinese communists. His out-of-hand rejections of petitions for a referendum on the ECFA, signed by hundreds of thousands of people, and the ECFA’s smooth passage through the legislature by a band of yes-men and women, are an affront to democracy in Taiwan.

Ma says the ECFA has nothing to do with politics, but General Secretary Hu did nevertheless extend a massive hand to him through his minion Wu, bringing up the possibility of further CCP-KMT cross-party talks. Hu said the ECFA showed the possibility of the two parties moving forward on cross-strait relations, based on a shared political foundation of opposing independence for Taiwan and adhering to the “1992 consensus.”

Hu also brought up the “one China” principle, and in doing so effectively introduced a political element into the ECFA. If Ma disagrees with Hu’s interpretation here, he ought to come forward and openly denounce it, or the ECFA will be forever associated with this political condition.

Instead, Ma and Wu simply appeal to the so-called “1992 consensus,” a cooked-up interpretation of the situation that betrays Taiwan’s sovereignty, showing precious little regard for Taiwan’s democracy. They believe that the KMT represents Taiwan, and say that the two-party high-level exchanges are indispensable to the furthering of cross-strait relations.

Beijing wants to characterize the “Taiwan question” as a residue of the old civil war fought between the Chinese Nationalists — the KMT — and the Chinese Communists, and is trying to wrest sovereignty from Taiwan. Whether or not Taiwanese give up their sovereignty to China is something that only they can decide: Taiwan’s democracy and future are not for the CCP or KMT to decide for their own mutual benefit.

If Ma truly has the public’s interests at heart he should be sincere with them. He seems to get all hot under the collar whenever the opposition questions his actions. Surely he can’t be stupid enough not to realize that this is precisely what an opposition party is supposed to do. The government’s responsibility is to lay out their plans and explain what they are doing, clearly and concisely, should any objections be raised.

In order to neutralize Hu’s political characterization of the ECFA, Ma should make the minutes of the negotiations available to the legislature and announce once and for all that there are absolutely no political preconditions, or secret understandings, behind the ECFA. Finally, the ECFA should be decided by a public referendum. The KMT have already shown themselves to be an appendage of the CCP, so they are no longer qualified to represent Taiwan.

James Wang is a political commentator.