The cross-strait service trade agreement is finally being reviewed by the legislature, article by article, in a process that neither the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) nor the opposition parties dare take lightly.
On Tuesday night, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators prepared for the review in the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee conference room, while the KMT caucus met earlier in the day to strengthen party morale. KMT lawmakers were warned that anyone who did not show up for the review meetings would be disciplined by the party, because the agreement must be passed.
Saying that it will be difficult to avoid a battle over the pact, KMT Legislator Chang Ching-chung (張慶忠) has proposed handling the review the way previous cross-strait agreements have been dealt with: letting them be implemented by default. Based on the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法), if the review takes longer than three months, the service pact would be declared to be in effect. However, the KMT last year promised not to invoke that option and also struck a consensus with the opposition caucuses that a series of public hearings on the pact would precede the legislative review, and that the deal would not be allowed to take effect by default.
The DPP is strongly opposed to the default outcome, while Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) has said that the legislature should be given a reasonable amount of time to review the document. Jiang is apparently unwilling to shoulder the blame should the pact be implemented without thorough review. Yet it is the legislature’s review agenda that has created a political standoff and social division over the pact. This is because President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration consistently presents cross-strait policy as a fait accompli, neither offering information to nor communicating with the public on such policies and not allowing either the legislature or the opposition any degree of oversight.
Since the government’s arbitrary signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), Taiwan’s sovereignty has weakened and its economy became more locked into the Chinese market. The result has been a massive outflow of Taiwanese industry, technology, manpower and capital. The economy has stopped developing and is becoming fully dependent on China, a reliance that is undermining domestic industry and the job market. Despite this, the government went ahead and signed the service trade agreement, and also plans to ink a trade in goods agreement that will only drag the nation down further.
The government’s handling of cross-strait affairs has caused a confidence crisis and widespread public discontent. A poll of industry representatives attending the legislature’s public hearings on the service trade pact found that 53 percent of respondents are unhappy with the deal, 51 percent are not happy that their industry will be deregulated and 55 percent think the agreement will speed up the outflow of Taiwanese management and workers to China.
Although the general public and the business sector are unhappy with the pact, the government insists that it must be passed in the current legislative session, with a defiant attitude that is forging common ground between the public and opposition parties.
Cross-strait affairs are neither the sole province of Ma, the Mainland Affairs Council, the Straits Exchange Foundation nor the KMT government. The legislature’s decision to review each article of the agreement should be applauded. Those that are not in the best interests of local industry and the public should be scrapped and a new round of talks based on what the public and industry want should be held so a reasonable deal can be negotiated under the oversight of the legislature and non-governmental organizations.
Legislators equipping themselves with sleeping bags in expectation of a marathon battle are not good for Taiwan’s democracy, but passing the service trade pact would have an even worse impact on the nation, since it affects the future well-being of all Taiwanese.
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past