Last Sunday, the leaders of Taiwan’s governing and main opposition parties held the first-ever debate on the government’s proposal to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. Disappointingly, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who has been pushing for an ECFA, used the occasion to play word games, showing off his quick wit and nimble tongue, while failing to give a clear and complete account of his government’s policies.
Instead, he used the televised debate as a propaganda exercise. Notably, Ma evaded a number of major issues. What is the ECFA, exactly? How far have the negotiations gone and what is being talked about? What goods and services are included in the “early harvest” list of items that will enjoy lower or no tariffs if an ECFA is signed, and why can’t the government make the list public? What mechanism exists to supervise the negotiation process? What impact will the ECFA have on Taiwan, especially on the employment market? How much damage will it do to Taiwan’s sovereignty? What is the government’s strategy for Taiwan’s development? Will the Ma administration lean completely toward China, or will it seek further integration into the wider world?
Instead of addressing these major issues, Ma stressed minor aspects. He chose to beat around the bush rather than giving the public a clear account.
These issues are key to Taiwan’s survival and development. The Ma administration would have us believe that an ECFA is the magic formula to cure all Taiwan’s ills and reinvigorate its economy.
If that were true, Ma should present objective expert assessments to persuade the public and gain popular support, rather than use a string of vague and emotive adjectives. He should not use government departments as a giant propaganda machine.
Ma’s performance in this debate only confirmed the public’s worries. Confronted by increasing public opposition to an ECFA, the Ma administration has not been able to win people over through reason. Instead, it still thinks it can fool people by bombarding them with propaganda and that they will end up seeing an ECFA as a fragrant flower or medicine, instead of the poisonous weed it really is.
During the debate, Ma should have begun by telling the public that an ECFA is a sell-out charter, economic in name, but political in purpose. Instead, he sought to hide this truth.
For one thing, an ECFA is not a free-trade agreement between two countries. It is an agreement between two areas, or even between a locality on the one hand and a central authority on the other.
It is basically the same as the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement signed in 2003 between the Chinese central government and the local government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Another cause for concern is that more than 40 percent of Taiwan’s external trade is dependent on China. If Taiwan goes ahead and signs an ECFA, its economy will become inextricably tied to China’s.
That would allow China to use economic means to push for unification. When that time comes, Taiwan will have no cards left to play, and will have no option but to give up without a fight.
Next, Ma should have used the debate to tell the public what products and services are included in the “early harvest” lists proposed by each side. During the course of ECFA negotiations, the Ma government has promised that it will not import more Chinese agricultural goods to Taiwan, it will not allow Chinese workers to come here, and that the survival of vulnerable industries will not be sacrificed.
China, for its part, keeps saying it is willing to “concede benefits” to Taiwan. If the two sides were telling the truth, then one would expect the Ma government to make its version of the “early harvest” list public so that it could trumpet the benefits it is trying to get for Taiwan.
Why beat around the bush and give the impression that they are up to no good? The hush-hush approach suggests that the “early harvest” list may well be harmful to Taiwan. That would explain why the government wants to sign the agreement first and announce the contents later, by which time the public will have no chance to object.
The most important thing is that Ma should promise to let the people decide through a referendum whether an ECFA should be signed. Since Ma took office, Taiwan has already signed 12 agreements with China without putting any of them to a referendum.
At the most, they were submitted to be examined by the legislature, and, in cases where no decision was made within one month in which the legislature was in session, they came into force automatically, as laid out in the Act Governing Relations Between Taiwan and China (兩岸人民關係條例).
In other words, these agreements have been signed between the Ma government and a hostile country — China — without being monitored by the legislature or the public taking part in the decision-making process. In short, the government pushed the agreements through unilaterally.
Now, as it prepares to sign an ECFA, the government is playing the same tricks again. The government is only willing to submit the agreement to the legislature because, given that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) holds an absolute majority of legislative seats, any reference or examination by that body is no more than a formality.
There is no mechanism to act as a real check on the government’s actions. So, if the Ma government is willing to hear the vox populi and play by the rules of the democratic game, it should let Taiwan’s 23 million people decide the fate of the ECFA.
Holding the debate between the president and the opposition leader was a step forward for democracy. However, what the public wants is not just an appearance of progress, but tangible outcomes. Several TV channels broadcast the debate, and many other media reported on it.
The president could have seized this opportunity to explain the content, of his policies to the public in a rational and professional way. Instead, the debate degenerated into a platform for Ma to mouth off. His discourse was full of emotional language and electoral sloganeering. Avoiding the issues, he gave empty answers to concrete questions. He sought to agitate the Taiwanese public and threaten them at the same time.
Worst of all, in his attempts to promote an ECFA, Ma didn’t hesitate to denigrate Taiwan’s past economic achievements, calling the period in which Taiwan was governed by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) “eight lost years,” and ignored the fact that the DPP performed better in office than he has.
He degraded Taiwan to the rank of North Korea and has forgotten the failure of his “633” campaign promise to achieve 6 percent economic growth, 3 percent unemployment and US$30,000 per capita GDP, which turned out to be Taiwan’s greatest-ever political hoax.
This president’s words are not to be believed, nor are his actions to be trusted. The only way forward for Taiwan’s people is to decide things for themselves through a referendum.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG AND TAIJING WU
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS