The Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics reported last week that the economy contracted a record 8.36 percent in the final quarter of last year and is forecast to decline by a historic 2.97 percent this year. This gives further weight to the prediction by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research unit of The Economist, in December that the Taiwanese economy could be the sixth-worst performer in the world this year. However, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) doesn’t seem to understand that he should humbly review his performance, own up to his shortcomings and policy mistakes and apologize to the public.
Instead, Ma chose to alienate himself further from the public by declining to attend the Taiwan Citizen Conference on National Affairs organized by the opposition and calling a financial meeting of Cabinet ministers at the Presidential Office in an attempt to compete with the opposition.
Moreover, he considers a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement (CECA) with China to be a tonic for the sluggish economy without proposing any other effective measures. He has once again wasted another opportunity to include public opinion in his attempts to revive Taiwan’s economy.
When did Taiwan, the creator of an economic miracle, fall behind the rest of the world economically? It is too much to bear to see Taiwan suddenly deprived of its glory and branded with shame. Job opportunities are rapidly decreasing, and even those who manage to keep their jobs feel deeply insecure over reduced salaries and unpaid leave.
An old Taiwanese saying has it that as long as you are willing to be an ox, you don’t need to worry that there will be no fields to plow. However, following Ma’s accession to power, even those who are willing to work cannot necessarily find a job. The global financial crisis did not occur because the Taiwanese public or enterprises made mistakes, so why should Taiwan be the hardest hit?
A closer investigation shows that one major factor was the transfer of political power. In other words, although the global economic crisis has swept every country, Taiwan was hit more severely because of the government’s inability to rule the country and its flawed policy direction. Its wishful decision to sign a CECA with China serves as the ultimate example of these policy mistakes.
If the ruling party only lacked executive capability, it would not have caused such great misfortune because the public would still be able to find their way out by relying on their own wisdom. But if those in power are opinionated and do not admit that their policies are flawed, they could lead the country to destruction.
Many foreign investment institutions have predicted that Taiwan’s economy will contract this year, with some saying this is because of Taiwan’s excessive dependence on China and that Ma’s relaxation of cross-strait policies to curry favor with China is of no practical use in boosting the economy.
However, not only has Ma failed to examine the disadvantages of depending on China, but he also thinks that Taiwan must sign an economic agreement with China within the “one China” framework to achieve eventual unification.
Even though Ma has time and again denied that signing an economic pact with China will trade away Taiwan’s sovereignty and promised that he will not allow Chinese produce and workers into Taiwan, signing an agreement would make it difficult for Taiwan to unilaterally ban the influx of Chinese products and workers. It is clear that the government has engaged in closed-door political talks with China on the matter.
Even though the Ma administration has stressed that the name, method and content of the agreement have yet to be finalized, it has already announced that signing an economic agreement with China is a fixed policy. This shows that the two sides have already reached a consensus on the principles and details of the agreement.
As for the recent accords on cross-strait direct flights, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) employed various strategies to evade legislative supervision. This time, Ma has clearly stated that he opposes the idea of holding a referendum to decide whether Taiwan should sign the pact with China, so it is likely history will repeat itself.
It is widely perceived that inking an economic agreement with China would be the beginning of de facto cross-strait unification. The Washington Post reported last Friday that signing the agreement “represents an important step toward the possibility of unification of the longtime adversaries.” Although Taiwan has tried to reduce the political impact of the agreement, Beijing has stressed the importance of the agreement to eventual cross-strait unification.
Kenneth Lin (林向愷), a professor of economics at National Taiwan University, argues that regardless of what the agreement is called, signing it is tantamount to de facto cross-strait unification.
Hung Tsai-lung (洪財隆), an associate research fellow at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research, also considers the agreement “a thorny rose that enhances Taiwan’s dependence on China.”
In other words, an economic pact with China will end Taiwan’s future. The opposition parties must voice their opinion and take the initiative. If the Ma government insists on signing the pact with China, the opposition must take to the streets and propose that Ma be impeached.
Since taking power, the Ma government has never stopped pushing its China-tilted policies even when it has put Taiwan in the way of danger. The Ma administration appears desperate to pin Taiwan’s future on signing an economic agreement with China. It is not being alarmist to claim that signing the pact will be the fall of Taiwan. If we do not act and prevent the government from signing the agreement, we are in danger of becoming slaves of a foreign country.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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