Li Qiang (
To no one's surprise, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) welcomed the offer in no time and indicated that promoting cross-strait economic cooperation and establishing a cross-strait common market are critical economic issues for the KMT-People First Party (PFP) alliance. Such a blatant response shows how like-minded the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are.
China stressed that a cross-strait CEPA must follow the economic model built between Beijing and Hong Kong, suggesting that direct links be opened beforehand. Obviously, what Beijing really wanted was opening direct links under the "one China" framework. Opening direct links is also the main pursuit of the KMT and the pan-blue camp. So on the issue of direct links, the positions of the CCP and the KMT-PFP alliance easily with each.
Is the CEPA a cure-all for Taiwan's economy? The pact in fact is a kind of ecstasy pill, alluring but fatal.
Experience tells us that economic integration only works between economies that have close per capita incomes and production prices. If there is a large gap in their per capita incomes and the lower-income economy is far bigger than the higher-income one (the size of an economy is usually determined by the size of population and land), then the smaller economy will be diluted by the big one.
The rate of dilution depends on the pace of the economic integration. The faster the integration is, the faster the small economy will be diluted.
A recent example is Hong Kong after 1997. Since its return to Chinese rule, the territory has witnessed economic recession, unemployment and a slump in housing prices. The CEPA was an emergency remedy offered by Beijing to prevent Hong Kong's economy from being diluted. It may have a short-term effect on Hong Kong's already hollowed-out economy, but its long-term effect is yet to be seen.
What happened to Hong Kong after 1997 will happen to Taiwan if we sign a CEPA with China. So do we want to repeat Hong Kong's mistakes?
Fortunately, our Mainland Affairs Council officials have made it clear that the CEPA is a product of Beijing's "one China, two systems" formula. Hopefully, our sober government officials can insist on this point and bear in mind that we are one country on each side of the Strait.
Economic independence is our last line of defense, and it must not be compromised by pressure imposed by interest groups. Similarly, the public must not be intimidated by the pro-unification media but open their eyes to see through China's tricks.
We should use public opinion and our votes to force the KMT and the pan-blue alliance to abandon their policy of promoting a "Chinese Economic Community." Establishing either direct links or an economic community is good only for conglomerates and China, but bad for the unemployed and those who make Taiwan their home.
Because Taiwan is an island situated in the Pacific Ocean, that's where the nation's future lies. Around the Pacific rim are the US, Japan and our long-term Latin American allies. With the help of these countries in technology and capital, our economy can avoid being diluted.
Therefore, there is no way that Taiwan will become isolated. Let's bravely say "no" to the CEPA as well as to the idea of a "Chinese Community."
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry