The cross-strait service trade agreement is gradually devolving into a confrontation between those who support it and those who oppose it.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which supports the passage of the pact through the legislature, has made three claims backing its implementation:
First, the KMT said that the government was unable to discuss the deal with domestic industrial and commercial groups before Taiwan and China signed it on June 21 because there was a “confidentiality agreement” between the two parties. It was not the government’s intention to sign the pact through in such a non-transparent way, the KMT has said.
However, many of those who oppose the service trade pact feel that since the agreement is so significant, a consensus should first have been reached domestically, beginning at the grassroots level and moving upward, instead of the policy being formulated by a few powerful national leaders in a top-down manner to satisfy their own motives.
Second, the KMT said the local economy has stagnated and has wondered why many Taiwanese are finding it impossible to accept the pact as a means to remove trade barriers between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and strengthen bilateral cooperation.
However, those who oppose the trade pact feel that Taiwan’s economic stagnation is a result of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inept leadership, saying that his ineptitude has resulted in an inability to stimulate private consumption and boost economic growth. They further say that these economic failings have nothing to do with the service trade agreement, which they claim will humiliate the nation and forfeit its sovereignty.
Third, the KMT also claims that Taiwan stands to gain more than it will lose by ratifying the cross-strait agreement and that the overall effect of the pact will be positive.
Despite that, those opposed to the agreement feel that if it will be so good for the nation, then the government should commission a comprehensive report on the domestic impact it will have so that the public can thoroughly understand all the benefits. By doing this, the government would clarify the public’s doubts over whether implementing the pact would adversely affect their jobs and salaries, and whether some are criticizing the pact just for the sake of opposing it.
However, instead of taking this route, the authorities have not offered the public any explanation on questions such as: After signing the pact, what are the possible problems that Taiwanese industry might face? How will the nation benefit from exporting services from certain sectors and how will it suffer from the import of services from other sectors? How should Taiwan’s service sectors react to these possible impacts and how should the nation use the agreement to strengthen its industrial competitiveness and increase economic growth? To this day, the public have yet to see or hear about any assessment being carried out on these key issues.
By failing to handle the signing of the service trade pact properly, the government has turned the agreement into a monster. The Ma administration should not blame its poor handling of the matter on public opposition to the pact.
Kuo Chen-hero is an adjunct professor in the School of Business at Soochow University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US