The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has frequently utilized government ministries and agencies to publicize the supposed benefits and urgency of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China.
But many questions remain over the economic and trade activities that the negotiations will cover, and over the processes that would introduce an ECFA.
A policy explanation released by the Mainland Affairs Council said that the ECFA would be transparent and thus gain public support. The truth, however, is that most Taiwanese do not understand what the ECFA will contain or is supposed to do, which means any talk of endorsing the government’s decision is premature.
The level of public participation in public affairs is an important indicator of sustainable development. If the government is serious about sustainable development, seeking public opinion across different sectors of society should be at the top of its list in promoting an ECFA.
In addition, some private industries like petroleum and plastic have consistently worked with or urged the government to promote an ECFA. This is not a good example of corporate social responsibility and is in conflict with the basic spirit and goals of sustainable development.
Signing an ECFA would lower tariffs and help exports for Taiwanese industries relating to plastics, chemicals, iron, steel and machinery. These vested interests would obviously benefit from an ECFA, but they are industries that emit high amounts of carbon, consume large amounts of energy and produce large amounts of pollution.
If the government is serious about implementing its energy conservation and carbon emission reduction policy, it should develop policies that accelerate the transformation and elimination of the abovementioned industries as soon as possible, while establishing an industrial model that includes low carbon emissions, low energy consumption and the minimizing of pollution.
Although there is some academic support for signing an ECFA, almost all who support it base their theories on traditional ways of thinking about a free economy and trade, saying that further cross-strait trade is the only way to increase Taiwan’s economic output.
The free economy model has its good points and we can make use of them, but the promotion of a sustainable development model needs a wider range of ideas and much more discussion. It is inappropriate to allow traditional thinking on a free economy to head this effort.
For example, theories on a green economy and the lifestyle it entails are based on the concept of sustainable development. Such theories emphasize local production and consumption and do not encourage long-distance international trade. This is an example of how thought on sustainable economics is developing in step with what we need most at this time.
I would remind the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) that ignoring or downplaying the unique political relations that exist between Taiwan and China is not the approach of a responsible government. Further, blindly attempting to increase trade is not a way to encourage sustainable development.
The government should focus on ways to improve quality of life. Only on such a foundation can it design models for industrial transformation and cross-strait trade that are beneficial to Taiwan’s sustainable development.
Brian Chi-ang Lin is a professor in and chair of the Department of Public Finance at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS