It is not difficult to understand why misgivings about signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China continue to mount even after the government last week released an impact study of the deal predicting positive results.
Simply put, the bottom line is a four-letter word: jobs. Ordinary people care more about whether they would still have a job after the signing of any cross-strait trade deal than they do about economists’ predicted increases in the nation’s annual GDP.
Economists at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research (CIER), commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs to conduct a study on an ECFA’s potential impact, said on Wednesday that the deal could increase Taiwan’s annual GDP growth by between 1.65 percentage points and 1.72 percentage points. The ministry claimed the increase might be even bigger if a multiplier effect is taken into consideration.
While the general pubic still has only a vague idea of the contents of the ECFA, the surprise in people’s responses to the CIER study lay not so much in their reaction to expected GDP growth or the projected increases of between 257,000 and 263,000 jobs per year, but in their reaction to the possible negative impacts on domestic manufacturers of products like towels, shoes, bedding and ceramics, on which the ministry did not elaborate.
It is normal to see discussions about the pros and cons of the ECFA or a formal free-trade agreement (FTA) with China. Such deals may allow some Taiwanese businesses, such as those in the petrochemical sector, to gain tax breaks from China. They may also facilitate export-oriented manufacturers and large corporations to take advantage of China’s massive market.
However, there is concern among a substantial number of Taiwan’s working population in locally-based industrial segments and small and medium-sized enterprises that they will be negatively affected by the deal because of a flood of cheaper Chinese goods on the market. These people will feel the deal’s negative effects in the near future.
People in Taiwan have long accepted the notion that free trade and market liberalization will create both competitive advantages and potential disadvantages. They certainly know trade-offs will have to be made in negotiating an ECFA, as with any trade agreement, based on the experience gleaned from Taiwan’s bid to join the WTO and talks with other trading partners.
It is also very clear that an ECFA with China would have political implications, as its establishment would be a prelude to a Taiwan-China FTA, which would hopefully imply China’s implicit acceptance of Taiwan signing similar trade pacts with other countries in the region, or even the US and in Europe.
The government should not emphasize just the positive side of cross-strait trade normalization. It should not blame the opposition parties for their opposition to an ECFA or speaking on behalf of the potential disadvantaged, because that is exactly how democracy works in a country like Taiwan.
Instead, a responsible government would introduce an emergency aid program for vulnerable segments before the ratification of any cross-strait trade pact. In addition to funding a social safety network for the disadvantaged, the program should aim at assisting local industries to upgrade and enhance long-term competitiveness.
The government should also tell the public why it thinks a cross-strait trade deal would not force Taiwan to tilt toward China or fall into the “one China” trap. For the sake of the national interest, the government should invite the opposition parties to help devise a timely safety mechanism to prevent these scenarios from happening.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
RSS