The ramifications of ECFA
The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) appears to be a major defeat for Taiwan. When the Bureau of Foreign Trade entered negotiations about a year ago, it claimed on its Web site that Taiwan would get tariff reductions on petrochemical and machinery products that would add up to an additional US$65 billion in exports at the expense of Japan, South Korea and ASEAN, contributing greatly to GDP and employment.
In fact, Taiwan has gained tariff reductions on shoes, garments and other non-strategic items with an existing trade value of about US$14 billion. Tariff reductions on these items will not revive the affected local industries, will not spur export growth to China and will not bring back Taiwanese shoe and garment makers who have long since moved to China, Vietnam and other low-cost countries.
As far as the trade substance of the ECFA deal is concerned, China has clearly refused to make any significant concessions. The message to Taiwan, and to the US and other countries, is very simple: There is no free lunch in China.
John Pickles
Taipei
David Reid appears to think that Taiwan needs electoral reform — presumably because he doesn’t like the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which is being pushed through without, in his words, “substantial scrutiny” (Letters, July 15, page 8).
It certainly can’t be for the reasons he claims, that the “pan-blue side have failed to live up to the standards expected in a democracy.” On the contrary, Taiwan is a perfect example of what routinely happens when a democratically elected majority party from the same political party as the head of government or state collude to pass legislation in what they deem to be in the national interest.
Such behavior is more or less a given in many parliamentary democracies, including the one he holds up as an example worthy of emulation, Australia. If there were any uncertainty — or scruples — on the part of pan-blue legislators, they need only glance at the opinion polls, which usually show that a majority of the public actually supports the ECFA.
The spirit of his letter is correct, though. There are problems with Taiwanese democracy, but the choice of electoral system does not seem to me to be of particular importance. There are also very serious issues surrounding the ECFA, not least its status as a “quasi-treaty,” unsigned by any national government. However, this makes complaining about the electoral mechanism all the more odd, given the sheer range of potential — and legitimate — grievances. It is almost redundant to add that the issue of ECFA will not be addressed by making it easier to hold referendums. Notoriously divisive exercises in populist policymaking rarely lead to considered debate and reflection, which is exactly what Taiwan still needs, on what is now a done deal.
Paul Deacon
Kaohsiung
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
RSS