Can the "small three links" promote the development of Kinmen and Matsu ? The legal basis for the ill-fated small three links trial run was the Offshore Islands Development Act (
On the one hand, the links pose a threat to the security of Kinmen and Matsu. On the other hand, what substantive economic benefits will they bring to Kinmen and Matsu so as to boost their development? What we have seen so far is that security concerns far outweigh economic development benefits.
The biggest hope of Kinmen and Matsu residents is for the small three links to turn the islands into transit points between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This will be difficult to accomplish due to security concerns. The only substantive benefits to Kinmen and Matsu are that decriminalization of small-scale trade may enable the residents to buy fresher and cheaper agricultural produce, criminal acts such as smuggling and illegal migration will be reduced, travel costs to Xiamen will be cut, and the "registered population" of the islands will increase. The difficulties developing offshore islands such as Kinmen and Matsu face are by no means unique.
Even though the small three links have become a focus of public attention, their essential purpose is being overlooked. Shouldn't we sit back and consider what exactly the offshore islands mean to Taiwan's overall development? The state has long ignored the development of its offshore islands, and their residents often feel like they are second-class citizens. In particular, military control put Kinmen and Matsu under greater restrictions than other areas.
Manufacturing industries are especially stifled by their hinterland locations and raw material costs. It will be difficult for the islands to develop manufacturing industries like Taiwan proper because the advantages many other offshore islands have are not found there. Even if the government insists on going in this direction, it will be difficult to reap any benefits. In fact, the most important assets of the islands are their rich tourism resources.
A planned, integrated development of these resources should revitalize the islands. Unfortunately, unregulated tourist activities are gradually destroying the beautiful underwater landscapes -- around Green Island, for example. We do not see any clear, appropriate development strategy for the offshore islands. What we are seeing instead is the continual harping on "tourist casinos." Does the ROC government truly want to encourage its citizens to give up their virtues of diligence and thrift in favor of adventurism? Does the government really want to put so little thought into long-term planning and not allow the residents to share the state resources they have long been denied?
The offshore islands should not be viewed as bargaining chips in cross-strait politics. We should try to understand their unique features, utilize their advantages, and develop industries that are beneficial to them. While developing the economy of Taiwan proper, we should also help the offshore islands find their place and enable them to compete globally. In fact, for most residents of the offshore islands, whether or not the small three links will succeed is not the point. What they are looking for is a future for their home towns. Can they enjoy the same dignity and respect as the residents of Taiwan proper? They are not asking for much and it only takes a little attention from the government.
Yen Ching-fu is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Francis Huang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS