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.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS