Since the Xi-Ma meeting started on April 10th, one “roaring debate” is still burning in Taiwan. When Ma Ying-jeou met with Xi Jinping in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, he said “people on both sides of the strait belong to the Chinese nation” but mistakenly said “belong to the Republic of China.” Although he quickly corrected himself, many voices in Taiwan believe Ma Ying-jeou “intentionally misspoke” to intentionally mention “Republic of China” in front of Xi.
On the morning of April 11th, Ma Ying-jeou returned to Taiwan and, in a brief statement at Taoyuan Airport, once again said “belong to the Republic of China” instead of “belong to the Chinese nation.” When asked by the media if it was a slip of the tongue, he only smiled without answering.
A Slip of the Tongue From “Chinese Nation” to “Republic of China”?
Ma Ying-jeou’s slip of “Chinese nation” to “Republic of China” excited many Kuomintang (KMT) politicians, believing that Ma Ying-jeou dared to talk about “Republic of China” in front of Beijing, which dealt a blow to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan independence. Among them, KMT legislator Lai Shih-pao was particularly active, saying, “I don’t believe it was a slip of the tongue. According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the mainland belong to the Republic of China without any problem.”
Fu Kun-chi, the convener of the KMT legislative caucus, held a similar view, saying, “Ma Ying-jeou truly believes that we are the Republic of China, indeed we are the Republic of China, and we are descendants of the Yellow Emperor.”
The Taiwan media, China Times, expressed its opinion on April 12th in the form of an editorial, interpreting Ma Ying-jeou’s statement as “almost certainly not a mistake or slip of the tongue,” highly praising Ma Ying-jeou for speaking of the Republic of China not only in mainland China but also under scrutiny from the DPP camp. How can the DPP speak out in the future? Dare they speak of the Republic of China in mainland China?”
However, Xiao Hsü-tsên, executive director of the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation, clarified on the 12th that “Ma Ying-jeou simply misspoke, the content of Ma Ying-jeou’s script was the Chinese nation.” After the “Xi-Ma meeting” and Ma Ying-jeou’s return to Taoyuan Airport for a brief speech, the Hong Kong 01 reporter received the full text of Ma Ying-jeou’s speech from Ma Ying-jeou’s office in the first time. Indeed, as Xiao Hsü-tsên said, both speeches were written as “Chinese nation,” not “Republic of China.” During the “Xi-Ma meeting” held recently, Ma Ying-jeou mistakenly said “Chinese nation” as “Republic of China.”
When the “Creative Ambiguity” of the 1992 Consensus is No Longer Available
This episode in Taiwan has turned into a “roaring debate” due to the political struggles between the blue and green camps and the consciousness of cross-strait opposition. Especially for most blue camp members and supporters, they firmly believe that when Ma Ying-jeou mentioned “Republic of China” in front of Xi Jinping, it must have been cleverly designed and planned in advance to prove that the “1992 Consensus” is “one China, respective interpretations,” which conforms to their imagination that “respective interpretations” outweigh “one China.”
If this is the case, then Ma Ying-jeou’s “intentional misspeaking,” besides delighting the internal Kuomintang members in Taiwan, might indeed have clumsily affected cross-strait relations. Because reviewing the essence of the “1992 Consensus,” it is about “both sides of the strait belonging to one China,” and other issues arising from this are dealt with through “you say yours, I say mine” to avoid controversy. This is the essence of the “1992 Consensus” and also the crystallization of the wisdom of the Chinese on both sides of the strait.
In fact, according to the replay of the scene at the Xi-Ma meeting, when Ma Ying-jeou said “Republic of China,” Xi Jinping, who was sitting opposite, smiled calmly. Xi Jinping’s remarks were even closer to the spirit of the “1992 Consensus,” only mentioning “both sides of the strait belong to one nation, belong to one country,” without mentioning “People’s Republic of China” in the content of the conversation.
If according to the blue camp’s “self-satisfaction” interpretation, Ma Ying-jeou “intentionally misspoke” in Beijing just to express the position of “both sides of the strait belonging to the Republic of China” to the mainland side, then undoubtedly, it broke the subtle tacit understanding of the “1992 Consensus.” If in the future, Taiwan or the Kuomintang regard this as a standard and no longer use “both sides of the strait belong to one China” but emphasize “both sides belong to the Republic of China,” then the mainland side could similarly propose “both sides belong to the People’s Republic of China” as a corresponding response.
Rare Use of “Taiwan Belongs to the People’s Republic of China”
This result is not just imagination. On January 18, 2020, during Xi Jinping’s visit to Myanmar, the “China-Myanmar Joint Statement” was signed, which uncommonly used the phrase “Myanmar reiterates its firm adherence to the One China policy, considering Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang as inseparable parts of the People’s Republic of China,” instead of the traditionally used “three paragraphs”: “There is only one China in the world. The government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is an integral part of China.”
The adjustment of the discourse on Taiwan in the “China-Myanmar Joint Statement” by the mainland side is clearly aimed at the DPP Tsai Ing-wen government’s “Republic of China Taiwan” proposal, which empties the “one China” connotation of the Republic of China and even describes the Republic of China as two countries opposed to and not subordinate to the People’s Republic of China. It can be seen that Tsai Ing-wen subsequently formally proposed the “non-subordination” between the two sides in her “Double Ten Speech” in 2021.
Therefore, for Beijing, as long as the “1992 Consensus” has the foundation of “one China,” the ambiguous space of “you say yours, I say mine” can exist. The DPP government’s practice of attaching Taiwan independence to the Republic of China has destroyed the foundation of “one China,” thereby breaking and compressing the ambiguous space between the two sides. In other words, since Taiwan wants to claim that the Republic of China is a “sovereign independent country” independent of the mainland, then Beijing can further change its rhetoric to “Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China.”
“Intentional Misspeaking” Leads to a New Normal Unfavorable to Cross-strait Relations
Now, Ma Ying-jeou’s “intentional misspeaking” in Beijing, although without the intention of “two countries” thinking, the meanings of “both sides of the strait belong to one China” and “both sides belong to the Republic of China” are ultimately different in the internal context of cross-strait relations. The latter leads to “no longer ambiguous.” If “both sides belong to the Republic of China” becomes a “new normal” that the blue camp is willing to accept and the green camp is willing to accept, then mainland China may propose a corresponding “new normal” of “both sides belong to the People’s Republic of China” in response.
Under the atmosphere where the blue camp is self-satisfied and the green camp is hesitant about accepting Ma Ying-jeou’s “intentional misspeaking,” Taiwan may as well consider, if in the future senior mainland officials visit Taiwan and express in public that “Taiwan belongs to the People’s Republic of China” or “both sides belong to the People’s Republic of China,” how would everyone feel? Wouldn’t they be furious? They are bound to be indignant regardless of their political affiliations.
From this perspective, let the “slip of the tongue” just be a “slip of the tongue.” Insisting on calling it “intentional” or “deliberate” would be a good thing or would it be a clumsy move for cross-strait relations? (Zhang Junkai)
