馬英九在其總統任期內（2008–2016）主張透過穩健的兩岸政策、經濟整合與文化教育交流來促進兩岸關係和平發展，甚至在部分支持者眼中，他所推動的兩項關鍵政策——教育改革與《兩岸服務貿易協議》（簡稱服貿協議）——被視為是為和平統一鋪路的長遠佈局。然而，這兩項政策最終皆遭遇強烈反彈與政治阻力，被迫暫停甚至失敗，背後涉及極為複雜的社會、政治與意識形態因素。

首先，在教育改革部分，馬政府希望透過課綱微調強調中華文化與兩岸歷史連結，尤其在高中歷史、公民課綱中加入如「中國大陸地區」這類描述，並將過去的「中國史」重新納入「本國史」框架。這些調整在當時被支持者視為糾正台灣過去教改偏向「去中國化」的趨勢，有利於讓台灣青年了解兩岸共同的歷史與文化基礎，進而淡化敵意、促進和平統一的社會心理條件。

然而，這樣的課綱改革立即引發激烈反對，尤其是來自學生團體與本土意識強烈的教師與社運人士。2015年「反黑箱課綱運動」在全台多所高中與大學爆發，學生們認為馬政府未經公開、透明的程序推動課綱更動，且這些變動被質疑有「意識形態目的」，意圖強化中國認同、壓縮台灣主體性。課綱爭議最終演變成佔領教育部、街頭抗議等激烈行動，不但使政策無法順利推動，也使馬英九政府在青年族群中的信任度大幅下滑。面對民意強烈反彈與即將到來的大選壓力，政府最終被迫讓步、暫停實施。

其次，《兩岸服務貿易協議》則是在2013年馬政府與中國簽署，內容涵蓋金融、醫療、零售、旅遊、通訊等服務業開放，希望透過進一步經貿整合強化兩岸互信與共同發展。從經濟角度而言，該協議被認為有助於台灣中小企業拓展大陸市場，提升競爭力，從政治角度來看，也被視為是深化兩岸經濟命運共同體的關鍵一步，長遠而言可能削弱兩岸分離主義的動能，為未來和平統一奠定現實基礎。

然而，服貿協議的審查與推動過程，被外界批評為缺乏透明、立法院審查不嚴謹，引發強烈不信任。2014年3月18日，數百名學生佔領立法院，發動「太陽花學運」，掀起全台空前規模的反服貿抗議。抗議者認為此協議可能加劇財團壟斷、犧牲基層勞工與小商戶權益，並質疑其背後存在政治統戰企圖。此舉象徵社會對中國因素的深層不安，也是對馬政府與中國走得太近的警訊。儘管馬政府一再強調協議為純經濟性質，但在缺乏社會共識與國會信任的情況下，服貿最終被「無限期擱置」，不再推動。

總結來說，無論是教育改革還是服貿協議，其原意或許是出於一種和平整合、軟性統一的戰略考量，但在實際推行過程中，卻觸動台灣社會對中國的深層疑懼與對民主程序的高敏感度。在兩岸政治認同高度分歧的台灣，任何被解讀為「統一鋪路」的政策，都很容易引發強烈反彈。馬英九時代的兩項重大政策因此最終雙雙喊停，也說明即使是強調和平理性交流的路線，若缺乏社會共識與程序正義，依舊難以落地。

Ma Ying-jeou's Presidency: Why His Education Reform and Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement Were Ultimately Halted

During his presidency (2008–2016), Ma Ying-jeou advocated for stable cross-strait policies, economic integration, and cultural-educational exchanges as a means of promoting peaceful development between Taiwan and mainland China. Among his supporters, two of his key initiatives—the education reform and the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA)—were even seen as long-term strategies laying the groundwork for eventual peaceful unification. However, both policies ultimately encountered intense backlash and political resistance, leading to their suspension or outright failure. Behind this outcome lay deeply rooted societal, political, and ideological complexities.

Ma’s proposed education reform aimed to revise school curricula to place greater emphasis on Chinese culture and the historical ties between Taiwan and the mainland. Specifically, the government sought to include terms like “Mainland China region” in textbooks and to reincorporate “Chinese history” into the framework of Taiwan’s national history curriculum. Supporters of this move saw it as a correction to what they perceived as an earlier trend of “de-Sinicization” in Taiwan’s education system. They believed the reforms would help Taiwanese youth better understand their shared cultural and historical roots with the mainland, thereby reducing hostility and creating a more favorable psychological environment for peaceful unification.

However, these curricular changes triggered fierce opposition, especially from student groups, educators with strong Taiwanese identity, and civil society activists. In 2015, the Anti-Black Box Curriculum Movement erupted across high schools and universities throughout Taiwan. Students protested the government’s opaque and non-transparent approach to implementing the new curriculum, accusing the changes of being ideologically driven and aimed at promoting a pro-China identity at the expense of Taiwan’s own subjectivity. The controversy escalated into dramatic acts of resistance, including the occupation of the Ministry of Education and large-scale street protests. These developments not only stalled the policy but also significantly damaged the Ma administration’s credibility among younger generations. Faced with overwhelming public opposition and mounting pressure ahead of the coming elections, the government was ultimately forced to back down and suspend the curriculum changes.

The Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA), signed in 2013 between Ma’s government and China, aimed to liberalize trade in various service sectors—including finance, healthcare, retail, tourism, and telecommunications—between both sides of the strait. Economically, the agreement was pitched as a way to help Taiwan’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) access the mainland market and enhance competitiveness. Politically, it was seen as a step toward deepening cross-strait economic interdependence and fostering a “shared economic destiny,” which in the long run might reduce the momentum for Taiwan independence and create a more practical foundation for peaceful unification.

Yet, the CSSTA's legislative review and implementation process was widely criticized for its lack of transparency and weak oversight by the Legislative Yuan, leading to deep public distrust. On March 18, 2014, hundreds of students stormed and occupied the legislature in what became known as the Sunflower Movement, sparking one of the largest anti-China protests in Taiwan’s history. Protesters feared that the agreement would worsen corporate monopolies, harm small businesses and labor rights, and accused the pact of being a veiled political move to advance China’s united front strategy. The movement reflected deep-seated anxiety about Chinese influence in Taiwan and served as a warning against perceived over-rapprochement with Beijing. Despite repeated assurances by the Ma administration that the agreement was purely economic, the absence of public consensus and institutional trust ultimately led to the CSSTA being indefinitely shelved and abandoned.

In summary, while both the education reform and the CSSTA were likely motivated by a vision of peaceful integration and soft unification, their implementation clashed with Taiwan’s societal fears about Chinese influence and its highly sensitive democratic culture. In a society deeply divided over national identity, any policy perceived as paving the way for unification is bound to provoke intense resistance. The eventual suspension of these two major initiatives during Ma Ying-jeou’s tenure illustrates a crucial lesson: even policies promoting peaceful and rational engagement cannot succeed without social consensus and procedural legitimacy.