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
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Just before dawn on Jan. 17, a Chinese military drone crossed for the first time into Taiwanese airspace above a disputed coral reef in the South China Sea. The reconnaissance aircraft lingered over Pratas Island (Xisha Island, 西沙群島) for a few minutes, while Taipei issued warnings to leave over international radio frequencies. China said the flight was a “normal” training mission. Taiwan called it “provocative and irresponsible.” On the other side of the world, officials in Europe saw the maneuver as part of a long-term Chinese plan to salami-slice away Taiwanese control over its territory and, eventually, force its unification with China. EU officials
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
RSS