|
EDITORIAL :
Credibility gap wider than the Strait
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) raised concerns when he said the idea of Taiwan and
China functioning as separate governments within a “one China” framework could
be up for discussion. The Presidential Office quickly clarified that what he
meant was that the idea should be discussed on an academic level, not in
cross-strait negotiations anytime soon. That did little to ameliorate the
concerns of critics, and rightly so.
Ma’s statements, even as bland as they are, cause concern because he suffers
from a credibility gap that no amount of platitudes or photo opportunities can
bridge. It is a gap that keeps growing. To be fair, however, it is not a gap
that is his alone; he shares it with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
His “separate governments in a ‘one China’ framework” comment raised hackles
because of the dense fog that has surrounded cross-strait negotiations since Ma
took office, with the accompanying lack of legislative oversight of the talks
and the use of “semi-official” bodies to give his government credit when he
wants it, and plausible denial when he needs it.
All those KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lovefests have not helped either,
given the pronouncements that have emanated from them. Honorary chairmen and
other KMT members appear to have forgotten that they live in a multi-party
nation, not the one-party state they grew up in or the single-party China they
apparently aspire to. There are clear indications that much of the cross-strait
agenda is dictated by Beijing, with input from Taipei.
Ma wants to take credit for inspiring more academics to think about cross-strait
issues, but the problem is he only appears interested in what Chinese academics
or those in his own chorus line have to say. He has either turned a deaf ear to
those who have queried any of his policies or — in the case of an open letter
from 34 academics and other experts about the probe into “missing official
documents” from former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) era — had his aides
brush aside the concerns on the grounds that the signatories were foreigners who
really did not (ie, could not) understand Taiwan-China relations or were
interfering in Taiwan’s judicial affairs, thereby impinging upon its
sovereignty.
It is the same credibility gap that made his posing in the cockpit of an
upgraded Indigenous Defence Fighter (IDF) on Thursday look ridiculous. The
revamping of the IDFs’ avionics and flight control systems cannot make up for
the air force’s limited number of fighter jets and the overall reduced
capabilities of the military — not when compared with the rapidly modernizing
People’s Liberation Army.
The shameful lack of military readiness cannot be laid solely on Ma’s
concessionary “make talk, not war” mindset, but the blame can and should be put
squarely on the KMT’s shoulders. It was unwilling to vote for any major defense
packages during the eight years Chen was in office, simply as part of its
efforts to kill any legislation that might be seen as giving Chen’s
administration an advantage, regardless of whether the nation needed it or not.
In poll after poll, a vast majority of Taiwanese have said no to Beijing’s “one
country, two systems” principle in any way, shape or form. Despite China’s
economic blandishments, they are satisfied with the “status quo.” And why not,
when Beijing’s repressive government and the escalating number of ecological
disasters make the vaunted “economic miracle” along China’s east coast look more
like a Potomkin village with each passing year — and each successive anti-graft
drive in the CCP.
That brings up the final plank in Ma’s credibility gap. Despite repeated
pledges, he has been unable to reform the KMT or Taiwan’s “black gold” politics.
His administration’s only real “success” in its anti-graft efforts has been the
jailing of Chen — and the indictment of former president, and the KMT’s other
archnemesis, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Please mind the gaps.
|
