My fellow citizens, the people of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are all of Chinese ethnicity. We share a common heritage, language, history and culture.
Ma here forgets about the Taiwanese aboriginal peoples who are, by nearly all academic accounts, not ethnically Chinese at all. His second sentence should have read that 'we partially share a common heritage, language history and culture' if it wanted to be accurate.
I have always called for adherence to the principle of "no unification, no independence and no use of force" under the framework of the ROC Constitution, and have sought to promote cross-strait interaction and cooperation within the parameters of the 1992 Consensus.
Ma has not ALWAYS called for the three Nos. That was a specific policy construction for his 2008 election campaign. In defining cross-strait interaction and cooperation as being delimited by the parameters of the 1992 Consensus, Ma invokes a fictional 'agreement' in which neither China nor the ROC formed any consensus about the definition of One China. China roundly rejected the concept of 'each with their own interpretations'.
With Chinese culture as the foundation, we can seek pragmatic and feasible solutions to cross-strait disputes.
Note the reference to Chinese culture. This has been a major front in Ma's cross-strait policies as evidenced by the number of cultural and educational exchanges that have taken place across the strait. In the construction of his sentence, it wouldn't make any sense to use Taiwanese culture as a foundation, but his absenting of a Taiwan-centric culture is telling. Here is a President trying to reignite a sense of belonging to China (ROC) one suspects as a first step to ease the public toward belonging in China (PRC + SAR TAIWAN).
Each agreement enhances and safeguards the rights and interests of Taiwan's people and has nothing to do with sovereignty.
Ma has been trying to convince the Taiwanese that agreements between Taiwan and China do not involve sovereignty but I'm not sure he's winning the argument. I'm also not sure that the DPP is either. Here Ma's claims are more speculative than substantive and are ambiguous. Rights and interests could be claimed by almost anyone to be in almost any state of affairs at any time - it would be very difficult to debate the level of protection and enhancement they have undetgone.
The ROC is a sovereign, independent nation, and Taiwan long ago became a democracy in which sovereignty lies in the hands of the people. We should have full confidence that Taiwan's future is, as a matter of course, in the hands of its 23 million people.
Ma seems to be making a round about way to say that the sovereignty of the ROC (and by extension Taiwan which forms a region of it) rests with the people. But Taiwan did not long ago become a democracy - it became so only 20 years ago! Although I like the idea of Taiwan's future being in the hands of Taiwan's 23 million people I'm not sure that saying 'we should have full confidence' is sufficiently emphatic. I want to have full confidence but ...
Today, more nations are supportive of Taiwan's participation in international organizations and related activities.
Are they? Examples please ...
Indeed, if Taiwan can get more international space, it will make us more willing and give us the courage to continue strengthening the cross-strait relationship, thereby creating a virtuous circle between the two sides.
Note the big IF right there at the beginning. Ma's logic in saying that gaining international space will strengthen cross-strait relations and create a virtuous circle is not something that I think the CCP in Beijing will believe in. I'm also not sure how this would be realised. Finally, his sentence construction seems to be a plea to Beijing to give more international space so that Taiwan can trust closer integration with China.
Taiwan's democracy and way of life are the sources of its creativity and vitality, and this is something of which the Chinese-speaking world can be proud.
Why should the Chinese speaking world be proud of that? Ma's rhetoric here stems directly from the politics of diasporas and exceptionalism, closely tied to nationalism and authoritarianism. Why couldn't Ma have just said that it is something the Taiwanese can be proud of? Why this need to conflate Taiwan within a Greater China Region:
SHANGHAI -- China said Monday it would soon launch a stock index covering 500 firms listed in the mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan to enhance financial cooperation in the Greater China region.Divisions over independence versus unification, ethnic clashes and partisan wrangling are perennial issues that have shaped debate in Taiwan for decades. Despite changes in the environment and public fatigue with such controversy, the old divisions persist as before. However, if our discourse remains stuck in the past, reform and progress will surely be constrained.
Ma is very clever here. He paints the debate over independence, 'ethnic clashes' and partisan wrangling is out of step with the new environment and instructs the public to feel fatigue with the reasons for those issues. Then he goes on to say that talking about such issues will leave us stuck in the past and will be the reason why reform doesn't work. This is a not so sly dig at the opposition DPP and an indicator to the public that they discussion of such issues will be pointless and counterproductive. Way to frame the debate!
We are aware that in the past, investment was insufficient owing to cross-strait tensions, unclear policies and government inefficiency. But circumstances have changed of late.
Another dig at the DPP coupled with a reassertion of the supposed change in reality. Ma says circumstances have changed of late and I agree but those I perceive that many Taiwanese regard the changes as not necessarily moving in a positive direction.
Let us be bold and forceful as we work to reach our goals. In confidence, let us welcome the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China!
And that's the money shot right there. Ma and the KMT are focused on surviving until the ROC's anniversary and capitalising on the numerically symbolic victory. For those of you interested in Taiwanese politics, the importance of symbolism should be always in the back of your minds. For at least 35-45% of the population, the 100th anniversary of the ROC will not be a time to celebrate but to mourn Taiwanese continued subjugation under the imported colonial polity of the ROC. No expense will be spared for the celebrations and the Government will likely further implore the public to celebrate and, if they don't, claim they did anyway.
