The long-awaited meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
During the two-hour meeting, Ma called on Chen to open direct transportation links, initiate cross-strait agricultural cooperation, relax restrictions on Chinese tourists traveling to Taiwan and allow Taiwan's financial services sector to establish branches or subsidiaries in China. He seemed to be saying that if Taiwan and China could resume talks there would be a range of benefits. Cross-strait relations would improve, Taiwan's economic problems would be solved, private investment would be stimulated and foreign investment would flow into Taiwan, but only if the government was willing to acknowledge the "1992 consensus."
However, Ma's remarks are misleading and could lead to misguided economic policies and jeopardize the security of the nation.
There is nothing new about Ma's arguments. They are the same old pro-China pan-blue arguments, and a trap set by Beijing. In order to set up agricultural cooperation between Taiwan and China and further strengthen its "united front" strategy against Taiwan, Beijing has set up experimental zones for agricultural cooperation over the years.
Last year, Beijing invited Taiwanese agricultural experts to attend its cross-strait Agricultural Development and Cooperation Forum and provided Taiwanese farmers with various incentives such as the free use of land to lure them into transferring Taiwan's modern agricultural technology to China. According to media reports, the Guangdong-Taiwan Agricultural Cooperation and Experimental Zone has attracted Taiwanese investments amounting to NT$300 million (US$9.3 million), introduced Taiwan's orchid seeds and Taiwan-style orchid plantations to China, and thereby become a major competitor to Taiwan's flower and plant industry.
Clearly, Ma's proposal to enhance agricultural cooperation between China and Taiwan is exactly what Beijing wants. In the past, the relocation of Taiwan's manufacturing sector to China has resulted in Taiwanese companies having their technology copied by Chinese companies. If Taiwan's agricultural industry also jumps on the "China fever" bandwagon, they will go down the same road, and the victims will be millions of Taiwanese farmers and their families.
Ma's proposal to allow the financial services sector to set up branches or subsidiaries in China is even more worrying. This also indicates that the KMT is still unable to rid itself of outdated corporate ideas when it comes to the economy. "Wherever our customers are, our service is there" may be the trend in bank operations, but as their leverage increases, so does their risk.
Concentrating large assets in a nation that has vowed to annex Taiwan is tantamount to giving China control over the wellbeing of Taiwan's financial institutions. Some banks may maintain that Taiwanese banks must be internationalized. However, this can be achieved in a variety of ways and in many locations.
While China is still oppressing Taiwan on the diplomatic front, it is by no means a good time for the nation's banks to expand their business into China. Nor should this be on the agenda of a responsible government. In short, Ma is completely in the hands of big business and he lacks a comprehensive overview of national and financial security.
Ma's biased economic view that cross-strait direct links will save Taiwan is even more worrying. His argument is that once such links are established, Taiwanese companies will be able to reduce costs, thereby increasing their willingness to continue investing in Taiwan and thus helping to break the domestic economic deadlock.
His direct links argument is, however, flawed. According to an assessment of the effects of direct links conducted by the Mainland Affairs Council, the establishment of cross-strait direct links will lead to China-bound investments nearly doubling and a huge increase in China-bound Taiwanese tourists, resulting in an outflow of between NT$30 billion and NT$40 billion from Taiwan.
An opinion poll conducted by the Chinese National Federation of Industries, a strong proponent of the establishment of cross-strait direct links, suggests that 52.3 percent of Taiwanese companies will increase their China-bound investments once cross-strait direct transportation links are normalized, while only half, 27.4 percent, would increase their investments in Taiwan.
If NT$30 billion flows into China, the investment rate in Taiwan would be reduced by 3 percent, aggravating the domestic unemployment problem. Ma's proposition is by no means good news to Taiwan's general public.
Following Monday's meeting, Ma held a press conference criticizing Chen for not being concerned about the general problems facing the people of Taiwan. However, it seems it is Ma who has shown no concern for the future development of the nation.
Ma also attacks Chen's failure to improve the nation's economic performance, despite repeated promises. The reason Chen is unable to deliver is that he panders to pan-blue proposals that Taiwan should pin its hopes on China, thereby falling for the myth that "economic achievement requires stable cross-strait relations."
If this misconception remains in place, all our efforts to strive for a better economy and a higher standard of living will disappear among our attempts to strive for an opening up toward China.
We hope Ma will come to his senses and rid himself of his deviant "China complex" and seriously consider Taiwan's economic prospects from a Taiwanese perspective.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS