It is a shame that Ms. Tsai of current Taiwan leader ordered not to let former Taiwan leader, Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou, travelling to Hong Kong to give a speech to the international audiences including all the major news in the world. Her action speaks louder than her words. She always talks one thing and do another totally opposite thing. She uses and promised better democracy in Taiwan to win election. Now, she uses (non existent) security reason to attack and undermine democracy. She is worse than a snake.
Before heading for Honk Kong to give a speech, Mr. Ma complied with all the rules, including submitting his speech content to the authority. In some sense, it's censorship. He even made his trip simple and straightforward, a seven-hour, single-purpose, every-minute-under-public-scrutiny endeavor to share his views with the journalists. The true culprit is a narrow-minded, paranoid decision maker who assumed Mr. Ma would disclose state secrets openly, without having slightest notion that no one is guilty unless proved otherwise. A pity for a nation that prides itself as a modern democracy in Asia.
2
With ongoing corroding of social functions in the last 25+ days in Taiwan already. The concern is will it turn into a banana republic too?
1
Interesting to read debates in the comment section.
People who commented on the proper reading of the law miss the point entirely. It's not about what the law says, but how and when it is applied. Selective application along the party line is what we call "political motivation." The Chinese Communist Party selectively applies anti-grafting charges against select officials during the time of power transition, and such application of law can be similarly explained as "proper application of existing law" as suggested by some of comments.
Using "security concern" as a pretext to ban Mr. Ma from entering Hong Kong shows the weakness and insecurity of the new cabinet. Ms. Tsai just undermined herself.
People who commented on the proper reading of the law miss the point entirely. It's not about what the law says, but how and when it is applied. Selective application along the party line is what we call "political motivation." The Chinese Communist Party selectively applies anti-grafting charges against select officials during the time of power transition, and such application of law can be similarly explained as "proper application of existing law" as suggested by some of comments.
Using "security concern" as a pretext to ban Mr. Ma from entering Hong Kong shows the weakness and insecurity of the new cabinet. Ms. Tsai just undermined herself.
5
As a Taiwanese, I am not surprise about the Tsai government ban Ma, the ex-president, go to Hong Kong for his speech. As ex-president, Mr.Ma should know he still have been controlling as an ex president, meanwhile, Hong Kong is belong to China, and as ex- president, he is knowing his limit between China,because that is promise for the people them are living in Taiwan.If you thought the newly government is the pigs in the Animal Farm, that how did explain the Ma government when they beat the students and citizens by government force? Even Putin will make an apology to his Russian people.
WELL, if New York Times will invite him for his speech, and the theme is his exploits when he was the president, for example, the Father of Taiwan Independence, or the origin of the Chinese hatred of Taiwanese?
WELL, if New York Times will invite him for his speech, and the theme is his exploits when he was the president, for example, the Father of Taiwan Independence, or the origin of the Chinese hatred of Taiwanese?
1
Such excitement; love these comments; but the statement of Jonathan Sullivan, associate professor and director of research at the School of Contemporary Chinese Studies at the University of Nottingham was apparently missed by most.
The law was on the books under Mr. Ma and now is being used by Ms.Tsai for reason J. Sullivan states, Tsai government is in a state of transition with many issues to polish with regard to PRC-Taiwan relations and does not need whatever Ma may care to interject on his own initiative.
There are by the way long list of categories that prevent individuals from foreign travel to China so long as employed and sometime after of US Citizens. Do not treat it as one more violation of Human Rights. I’ve a friend who just this year will be able to come; worked for military contractor.
The law was on the books under Mr. Ma and now is being used by Ms.Tsai for reason J. Sullivan states, Tsai government is in a state of transition with many issues to polish with regard to PRC-Taiwan relations and does not need whatever Ma may care to interject on his own initiative.
There are by the way long list of categories that prevent individuals from foreign travel to China so long as employed and sometime after of US Citizens. Do not treat it as one more violation of Human Rights. I’ve a friend who just this year will be able to come; worked for military contractor.
1
Tsai Ing-wen rejected former R.O.C. president Ma Ying-jeou’s request to visit Hong Kong, Tsai's behavior just like The State Peace and Development Council of BURMA put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest during 1988~ 2011!
3
The law had been on the books since 2003. That means it was there throughout Ma's entire Presidency. He and everyone was on notice that given his access to classified information he would be subject to travel restrictions for 3 years at the government's discretion. But when the law actually gets applied to Ma, he says it's unfair? The rule of law means the law applies to everyone. It seems like it's not the government that's politicizing this, but Ma and the KMT.
5
The law is applicable to Taiwan security concerns. Mr. Ma could do this in Taiwan, and why bother to go to Hong Kong? In a 7-hour trip, Mr. Ma planned to fly to Hong Kong, give a speech to international media audiences, and fly back in a non-stop manner. I seriously doubt there is any security concern. The insecurity and mishandling of so many critical subjects such as economy, traffic, tourism, and industrial revitalization within 1 short months of taking over government are really worrisome.
This is serious. Mr. Ma has been an advocate for annexation of Taiwan by China and follows the "One China" principle which indicated that Taiwan is part of China. During his eight years as the president of the Republic of China (he insisted that Taiwan is only a part of the "Republic of China" which includes the China proper, Mongolia and Tibet). The People's Republic of China is regarded the legitimate government of China by all the major countries in the world. "Republic of China" has no real place in the world. Of course, Taiwanese would not trust Mr. Ma who may conduct his own pro-China "diplomacy", or, even worse, leak national security information to the Chinese authority.
The blocking of Mr. Ma to visit HongKong was decided by the rule of the laws. In 2003, with a majority of KMT legislators, the law was passed to restrict the former government high officials traveling abroad, exactly to prevent damaging activities by the former government officials in foreign lands.
The blocking of Mr. Ma to visit HongKong was decided by the rule of the laws. In 2003, with a majority of KMT legislators, the law was passed to restrict the former government high officials traveling abroad, exactly to prevent damaging activities by the former government officials in foreign lands.
6
So Ma could reveal secrets of Kuomintang in a couple of hours. That is the concern of DPP? Ha , ha, ha.
The 2003 Taiwan law applies to "countries or areas hostile to Taiwan...", no mention about friendly ones, and that the approval must be given by the very office the applicant served before stepping down, based on obviously the assessment of national security.
To cite just one, in the absence of protocol between Taiwan and China on the matter of security measures allowed in protecting Ma by Taiwan's own secret services, the risks go sky high, given the sensitivity and controversial politically Mr. Ma is in that "region". Neither Xi Jingping nor Tsai Ing-Wen can afford to entertain Mr. Ma's request, especially when Beijing cuts off all official contact between Taipei and Beijing, after May 20.
To cite just one, in the absence of protocol between Taiwan and China on the matter of security measures allowed in protecting Ma by Taiwan's own secret services, the risks go sky high, given the sensitivity and controversial politically Mr. Ma is in that "region". Neither Xi Jingping nor Tsai Ing-Wen can afford to entertain Mr. Ma's request, especially when Beijing cuts off all official contact between Taipei and Beijing, after May 20.
4
With thousands of missiles aiming at Taiwan and articles in its constitution threatening the use of force to annex Taiwan, China is of course a hostile nation to Taiwan. HongKong is part of China.
Ma was born in Hongkong. He has been committed to his father's death wish that Taiwan has to be annexed by China. The reason Ma's approval rating among Taiwanese was in the single digit and his party had loss the recent election. Taiwanese definitely do not trust Ma. He has vast amount of information about Taiwan's security. Therefor, according to law, Tsai's administration correctly blocked Ma's visit to HongKong.
Ma was born in Hongkong. He has been committed to his father's death wish that Taiwan has to be annexed by China. The reason Ma's approval rating among Taiwanese was in the single digit and his party had loss the recent election. Taiwanese definitely do not trust Ma. He has vast amount of information about Taiwan's security. Therefor, according to law, Tsai's administration correctly blocked Ma's visit to HongKong.
7
As SBK pointed out, Ma is not trustworthy and he is currently under investigation of being part of the illicit leak during his term when he launched a power struggle with the speaker of the house. Imagine mainland spies in Hong Kong "kidnap" Ma and force him to confessing Taiwanese secretes just like they did to the bookstore owner recently? Although most of the Taiwanese people might just happy seeing him "disappearing" into mainland China.
3
What a notorious example of denying human rights--to a former president who has had lead and kept the island in peace and prosperity for eight straight years. Who is a well-qualified for a Nobel Prize of peace and more so than many who have been awarded before. Is it a politics of hooligans playing out? What will be the justice and human freedom in future Taiwan and its 'democracy'?
2
My thoughts are those so well - expressed by the SCMP . Taiwan is going to need another 50 years before it can shed enough paranoia to behave like a true democracy . Who can blame them , especially in this case , after having thousands of missiles pointed at it for decades by mainland China ?
The question of Taiwan's independence continues to intrigue . Beijing seems to have decided against military invasion . It's strategy to regain Taiwan is now a long - term , boa constrictor squeeze on its prey and the 22 hold out nations that have stayed loyal to the ROC .
Eventually the snake will get what it wants . The big question is whether Taiwan will go willingly or fight . And if the latter , will the US come to its aid ? Or , rather , will the US even be logistically , militarily and politically WILLING and ABLE to come to its aid ?
The question of Taiwan's independence continues to intrigue . Beijing seems to have decided against military invasion . It's strategy to regain Taiwan is now a long - term , boa constrictor squeeze on its prey and the 22 hold out nations that have stayed loyal to the ROC .
Eventually the snake will get what it wants . The big question is whether Taiwan will go willingly or fight . And if the latter , will the US come to its aid ? Or , rather , will the US even be logistically , militarily and politically WILLING and ABLE to come to its aid ?
1
The law requires a 3 year discretionary travel restriction on persons with classified information. Ma took office with this law on the books. This is something he consented to by running for President. How does that affect Taiwan's democracy and how is that paranoia? Look around the world and there are laws restricting actions of people with access to national security information. People from Taiwan travel to China, and vice versa, every day. But a former President with recent classified information is hardly the same.
3
You do have an active imagination would be a shame to see it have to clash with the actual history of Taiwan – say Nixon administration forward. The US is as comfortable with the One China policy as are the governments of Taiwan and the PRC; it means what they wish it to mean in any given time period in as peaceful setting as is possible. It may be the USA will is the unstable element in that scenario come Jan. 1, 2017.
1
The action of the new Taiwanese government is beyond belief. If the former president committed espionage, then either put him under surveillance or try him. But by limiting a former president's travel in a democracy, all the current government is stating that how little faith they have in their own system.
The only party that is happy to hear this news is the CCP. They too enjoy engaging in this type of squabbles.
The only party that is happy to hear this news is the CCP. They too enjoy engaging in this type of squabbles.
2
What a incredibly bizarre comparison. You understand this is a temporary restriction for 3 years only? And only for individuals like Ma with recent classified information? This is a law that has been on the books since 2003, so it was in effect during Ma's entire Presidency. It's something he was on notice of and was okay with during his entire two terms in office.
Every country, even democracies, have laws governing actions of individuals with national security information. Get real.
Every country, even democracies, have laws governing actions of individuals with national security information. Get real.
4
'“If Ma had asked to appear in a less sensitive venue, like Tokyo for example, permission may have been granted, although we shouldn’t forget the lack of trust that persists around Ma,” Mr. Sullivan said by email. “The D.P.P. does not trust him ...' The question is, which Associate Professor Sullivan doesn't seem able to recognise, is rather whether inhabitants of Taiwan, like Mr Ma, can trust the DPP and the government it now leads. Preventing Mr Ma from travelling to Hong Kong was hardly a wise move on the part of Ms Tsai....
Henri
Henri
2
Shame, shame, shame. Taiwan is no better than dictatorships like Malaysia and Myanmar that bar there elected officials from travelling. This takes Taiwan back to the worst years of communist rule. Shame.
2
Read up on Taiwan history sometime quite fashioning, it was of course never under communist control but the KMT under Chiang Kai-shek was as brutal as Mao’s massacring native populations in 1947 and continuing like policies when settled on the islands post 1949. His son finally broke the pattern and moved toward democracy. It is considered one of the democracies of Asia today with a woman president.
2
"This takes Taiwan back to the worst years of communist rule."
Uh, which years were those? Taiwan had its own dark period under KMT's right wing dictatorship, but never communist rule. Given your apparent ignorance of even the most basic parts of Taiwan's history, it is hard to take your comment seriously enough to deserve a serious response.
Uh, which years were those? Taiwan had its own dark period under KMT's right wing dictatorship, but never communist rule. Given your apparent ignorance of even the most basic parts of Taiwan's history, it is hard to take your comment seriously enough to deserve a serious response.
This is funny. Some HKSAR anti-China activists seem to cheer when President Tsai Ing-wen was elected reposing their faith in their own struggle but now this.
To be clear, neither pro nor anti- anything in that region, namely, Mainland China, HKSAR and Taiwan, but it seems that Animal Farm is the real fable here
To be clear, neither pro nor anti- anything in that region, namely, Mainland China, HKSAR and Taiwan, but it seems that Animal Farm is the real fable here
4
That's an extremely superficial comparison based on a false equivalence. The law only affects Ma for three years, which is hardly a long period given the level of classified information he has. The law was on the books during Ma's own Presidency, so it's not something targeted at him.
Requiring a former chief executive to obey a temporary security restriction based on a law that was already in effect during his term is not even close to anything warranting an "Animal Farm" comparison.
Requiring a former chief executive to obey a temporary security restriction based on a law that was already in effect during his term is not even close to anything warranting an "Animal Farm" comparison.
4