Since President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration assumed office, unemployment has continued to set record highs. While government statistics show that unemployment hit 5.94 percent in June, US ratings agency Moody’s pointed out that the figure would be 7.1 percent if the percentage of the population forced to take unpaid leave is included.
A recent survey by Taiwan Thinktank found 12.7 percent of respondents to be either unemployed or seeking work, with approximately 30.6 percent of households suffering from unemployment. But instead of focusing on fundamental problems, the government has pinned its hopes on the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, saying that the pact will create 270,000 jobs. Can we really believe these statements?
The biggest concern is the potential unemployment an ECFA with China could cause. The survey also suggested that 50.8 percent of respondents did not agree with the government, which has said: “The signing of an ECFA with China would substantially reduce domestic unemployment.”
The survey said that the number of respondents who agreed with what the government has said about an ECFA only accounted for half of those who disagreed.
In addition, Chiu Jiunn-rong (邱俊榮), vice dean of the School of Management at National Central University, said the Global Trade Analysis Project model used in a report published by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research was based on the assumption that there is full employment in the market. Chiu said the report was therefore incapable of estimating how an ECFA would affect Taiwan’s domestic job market.
However, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) has repeatedly cited this report when stating that a pact with China would increase employment.
In addition, the government has not explained what an ECFA with China would entail. How can the public be expected to believe it will create jobs? A public opinion poll showed that 90 percent of respondents said they did not understand the proposed agreement’s content and 90 percent of respondents considered it necessary for the MOEA to publicize the details of an ECFA along with an objective assessment to give the public a better understanding of the matter.
The poll also said 80 percent of respondents disagreed with the content of the controversial cartoons the MOEA recently released, which depicted opponents to an ECFA as poorly educated and supporters as intellectually and socially superior.
The government should not push through such a controversial agreement against the will of the public. There have been many examples of economic affairs being put to a referendum in other countries. For instance, Denmark and Sweden made a referendum part of the approval procedure for their participation in European economic integration in 2000 and 2003 respectively.
Now that civic groups have completed the first stage of their application to hold a referendum on an ECFA, the government should not waste public funds promoting an economic pact with China or provide us with “professional assessments” to cover up the potential impact of the agreement. The government should make the contents of an ECFA public and engage the public in detailed discussion on what impact it may have on all aspects of our lives.
Whether to sign an ECFA should be decided by the public. Taiwan Thinktank is ready for a debate on the ECFA with the government, but is the government ready to discuss the matter openly?
Cheng Li-chiun is the chief executive officer of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS