It was a slap in the Taiwanese government’s face when negotiations on a cross-strait mechanism to avoid double taxation broke down at the last minute on Monday.
However, it should be a precious lesson for President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration: Haste makes waste.
The delay is good news for the public and more than 1 million China-based Taiwanese businesspeople, who can now avoid the harmful consequences of a hastily signed pact. Nevertheless, the way the Ma administration handled the talks is worrying and raises more concerns about the planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).
Citing confidentiality, Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der (李述德) refused to specify what “unexpected technical issues” caused the negotiations to fail, saying only that they were related to tax items, tax rates and the definition of residence.
Aside from the tax rates, some of these “technical issues” are basic terms that should have been addressed in the first few negotiation sessions.
Lee should have known this better than anyone else. Why, then, did the ministry wait until the last minute and allow the “technical issues” to get in the way?
Meanwhile, Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Secretary-General Kao Koong-lian (高孔廉) offered the excuse that the two sides had only begun negotiations on double taxation in October, and that the issue remained complicated.
The government has signed bilateral tax exemption agreements with 16 countries since 1981, but the negotiations for each of those took between one and four years to complete, he said.
Again, Kao and Lee should have known this better than anyone else. So why did they believe they could wrap up a tax deal with China in less than three months when officials knew it would be far more complicated than the agreements Taiwan has signed with 16 other countries?
What’s the hurry?
None of these questions will be answered since Lee made it clear that “he cannot reveal too much information” because the two governments are still in the process of negotiating.
This raises another question: Why the secrecy?
This secrecy is not in line with how Taiwan has handled previous tax proposals.
In the past, Taiwan included the private sector in the policymaking process by creating a tax reform committee, whose authority often transcended that of the finance ministry.
The committee reviewed many versions of tax rate proposals and the media accordingly informed the public. The proposals were thoroughly discussed before the committee and the government sought a consensus. After all, a balance must be struck between the government and the taxpayer.
This time around, however, the finance ministry is keeping the public in the dark, trying to single-handedly pull off a deal with China.
This will only end up triggering more opposition, not only to a taxation agreement with China, but also to other agreements such as an ECFA.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS