Under the old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, securing an official position meant a lifetime career. The old rigid bureaucracy created a triad of approaches to handling government affairs — holding a meeting, drafting a memorandum and issuing an announcement. Now, in the 21st century, this seemingly cure-all approach that skipped dialogue with citizens has recently returned to a government that claims that Taiwanese democracy has passed a historic milestone.
A typical example of this ruling style is the government’s hasty decision on inking an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. How should we expect an administration with flawed quality controls to do well on foreign negotiations or even to achieve policy goals that are in the best interests of Taiwan?
Changing the name of the economic pact from “comprehensive economic cooperation agreement” to ECFA has been criticized as nothing more than window dressing. It is clear that every level of the government has lost its way, from top to bottom. In a recent TV interview, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) tried to put his troops in order and set the tone for cross-strait policy, but the solution he proposed was nothing more than the same old trick — the Ministry of Economic Affairs will hold a meeting, write a memorandum and issue a press release to push for the ECFA.
The fact that the administration has yet to realize the problems with the agreement and continues to act nonchalantly toward critics only highlights the blindness of its policymaking. How could Taiwanese not be aware that their country is being exposed to greater danger?
The ECFA statement being drafted by the government will reportedly include more than 30 questions and answers and cite a study by a certain academic who claims that “Taiwan’s GDP will rise by 3.3 percent following the signing of an ECFA with China.”
Ma has already cited a report by the Chung-hua Institute for Economic Research and selectively interpreted the information. Is it possible that the ministry will keep up the farce? Academics have social responsibilities, so if official documents will include such startling information, they should also include the name of the author, the methodology used, data used and, most importantly, the premise of the research. Only then can the government earn the public’s trust. Using rigged figures costs the government its credibility
It would be more practical if the Ma administration could honestly answer the following questions instead of trying to justify its wasting public funds based on irrelevant information.
First, where is the government’s policy evaluation? Where are the authoritative figures showing that slashed tarifffs resulting from an ASEAN Plus One would have an impact on the domestic industry? Why is an ECFA with China the only solution to boosting Taiwan’s economy? Is the government really at its wits’ end? Does an economic pact with China guarantee that Beijing will not stick its hand into Taiwan’s efforts to sign free-trade agreements (FTA) with other countries?
Second, what will an ECFA with China entail? The government unilaterally expects the Chinese government to reduce tariffs on domestic petrochemical and mechanical products, but what will China request Taiwan to do in return? What kind of impact will an economic agreement have on Taiwan’s domestic industry? Has the government established a mechanism ensuring the fair division of profits produced by an ECFA? Will the public benefit from the agreement or will it only benefit certain corporations that have colluded with the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party? Will the government honestly tell the public how it will effectively help the harmed industries and solve extensive unemployment?
Third, what will be the government’s status when signing an economic agreement with China? Ma’s policy white paper says the government hopes to sign FTAs or CECAs with other countries to boost the economy, but why would the government change the name of an agreement with China to “ECFA” in an attempt to bypass the sovereignty issue? Is this what Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) meant when he said: “Anything can be discussed under the ‘one- China’ framework?” After cross-strait talks on the matter conclude, will the agreement be signed by both governments or will it be signed by Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林)?
Chiang’s family members have been involved in conflicts of interest in previous cross-strait talks, and now he is advocating signing a cross-strait agreement without legislative review. His failure to uphold the principles of neutrality and trust makes him questionable to represent the country in cross-strait talks.
Fourth, has the government engaged in any kind of dialogue with the public before setting its policies? Regardless of what it is called, any agreement with China will be considered a major public policy that may have an extensive impact on Taiwan. Thus it is necessary that the government participate in sufficient and rational public debate before making policies. Has the Ma administration completed internal integration, and has it discussed the matter with the opposition or the legislature? Has it given any explanations to the public?
Fifth, does the government’s decision-making process conform to democratic principles? Has the government reported to the legislature on the basic principles of an economic agreement with China? Has it pushed legislation for cross-strait agreements in order to enhance legislative supervision on the matter, or helped the public gain a better understanding of the economic agreement? Should the government hold a referendum to gain public approval of agreements involving cross-strait economic integration?
The government has the responsibility to provide the public with answers to all these questions. Only then can it serve the best interests of the public at the negotiation table based on strong public support. If the government refuses to accept the public’s right to know the answer to these questions, then we will no longer have a stable Taiwan. How could we then expect to have a stable government?
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS