Misleading model
On the issue of Taiwan learning from Hong Kong, one key point was overlooked in your editorial (“Taiwan can learn from Hong Kong,” Aug. 4, page 8). In fact, the point is always overlooked, which explains the widespread misunderstanding about “one country, two systems.”
The point is that the “one country, two systems” model was never meant to be a permanent solution. It was only meant to be a phase with a 50-year lifespan that began in 1997.
The Hong Kong model should therefore be portrayed as a means of finessing the transition to “one country, one system” by 2047. In Hong Kong that process of integrating with the Chinese political system is already well advanced.
NAME WITHHELD
Alternatives needed
Amid the public maelstrom over the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), there are two frequently reappearing sinkholes into which an opposition of any value risks disappearing.
The first is that the ECFA is a free-trade agreement. The second is that it should be rejected in a referendum as constituting a prelude to a de-facto Chinese annexation of Taiwan.
The ECFA is not a free-trade agreement (FTA). It is a commitment by two governments to fashioning a series of piecemeal trade regulation agreements. There are two important implications here.
First, in seeking to tie up the regulation of trade into a series of small agreements rather than establishing a general prohibition on tarriffs, the hope is that such regulatory agreements — and the indirect political power over Taiwan’s economy that they create — will be more time-consuming and difficult to undo by any future Taiwanese government. It is a smart play, although thoroughly reprehensible.
Second, in mistakenly characterizing the ECFA as some form of free-trade agreement, its’ opponents risk further discrediting the one political arrangement which could actually raise living standards while not violating the principle of the sovereign and free individual human being — free trade.
A rejection of the ECFA in a referendum begs the question of what to do instead. Whatever its faults, the ECFA is at least one answer to the very real question of how to ensure Taiwan’s continued position as an export economy.
To sit around putting up protectionist fences against certain Chinese and Southeast Asian imports would be even worse since it would invite retaliatory measures by those governments.
A campaign to establish actual FTAs with China and other countries in the region would be far better, although somewhat fanciful, since it is politically unpalatable to socialists and democrats everywhere.
What is missing in order to create real hope for Taiwan as a country of rich and free people is the clear recognition of government, of whatever stripe, as an immoral and dangerous impediment to individual freedom and prosperity and the courage to fight for this against the odds.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
In the past month, two important developments are poised to equip Taiwan with expanded capabilities to play foreign policy offense in an age where Taiwan’s diplomatic space is seriously constricted by a hegemonic Beijing. Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) led a delegation of Taiwan and US companies to the Philippines to promote trilateral economic cooperation between the three countries. Additionally, in the past two weeks, Taiwan has placed chip export controls on South Africa in an escalating standoff over the placing of its diplomatic mission in Pretoria, causing the South Africans to pause and ask for consultations to resolve
An altercation involving a 73-year-old woman and a younger person broke out on a Taipei MRT train last week, with videos of the incident going viral online, sparking wide discussions about the controversial priority seats and social norms. In the video, the elderly woman, surnamed Tseng (曾), approached a passenger in a priority seat and demanded that she get up, and after she refused, she swung her bag, hitting her on the knees and calves several times. In return, the commuter asked a nearby passenger to hold her bag, stood up and kicked Tseng, causing her to fall backward and
In December 1937, Japanese troops captured Nanjing and unleashed one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. Over six weeks, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and women were raped on a scale that still defies comprehension. Across Asia, the Japanese occupation left deep scars. Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines and much of China endured terror, forced labor and massacres. My own grandfather was tortured by the Japanese in Singapore. His wife, traumatized beyond recovery, lived the rest of her life in silence and breakdown. These stories are real, not abstract history. Here is the irony: Mao Zedong (毛澤東) himself once told visiting
When I reminded my 83-year-old mother on Wednesday that it was the 76th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, she replied: “Yes, it was the day when my family was broken.” That answer captures the paradox of modern China. To most Chinese in mainland China, Oct. 1 is a day of pride — a celebration of national strength, prosperity and global stature. However, on a deeper level, it is also a reminder to many of the families shattered, the freedoms extinguished and the lives sacrificed on the road here. Seventy-six years ago, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東)
RSS