Improving cross-strait relations during his presidency is President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) frequent boast, except that he always tells half the truth.
A half-truth is often a whole lie. That is why the latest protest led by students to stop the cross-strait service trade agreement clearing the legislature has gathered pace, attracting people from all walks of life demanding to know truths that have been withheld.
The lack of impact assessments on local industries before the agreement was signed in June last year is hard to believe and the 64 service sectors the government said the trade pact covers turn out to be more than 1,000 sub-sectors if a breakdown is provided. Even more perplexing is why people have been kept in the dark as to how the trade pact would affect the country from a national security perspective. A report was recently conducted by the National Security Council (NSC), but was then marked as classified.
We are not talking about relations with a country on the other side of the globe, but a close neighbor, which the NSC has recognized as Taiwan’s archenemy. Its businesses enjoy linguistic and cultural proximity — the key to expanding overseas service markets, and hold scale advantages over local firms.
Those against the trade pact are sometimes labeled as fundamentally opposed to all things Chinese. However, it is often argued in academic studies that free-trade agreements (FTAs) are not signed purely for economic reasons. The FTAs the US signed with Israel and Jordan in 1985 and 2001 respectively are often-cited examples that political considerations are key reasons for establishing trade pacts. With that in mind, caution over a trade pact like the cross-strait service trade agreement is necessary.
Nevertheless, since the protests began on Tuesday night, government officials have treated the demonstrators with nothing but frivolity and contempt, offering derogatory comments and calling their motives into question — the same way they have responded to critics of the pact for months.
The most recent example was the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ response to the revelation that power and communication cables, natural gas pipelines, reservoirs and airport runways are among the sub-sectors in the category of civil engineering that would be open to China under the agreement.
Publisher Rex How (郝明義) ferreted out the information after he looked up the Central Product Classification (CPC), a classification of goods and services used by the UN, to find out what the items listed in the category of construction works for civil engineering (CPC code 513) are. The ministry’s first reaction to the question was to try to discredit How, saying that he had used the wrong version of the CPC. It was not until it was proven that How had the reference right that the ministry admitted that they are on the list of items open to Chinese investors, but it vowed to strictly regulate investors from China in areas sensitive to national interests. What do other code numbers in the agreement’s Schedule of Specific Commitments mean? The codes need to be decrypted.
The government claims that a survey shows 60 percent public support for the pact, but it reveals nothing else about the survey. What was the sample size? What were the questions? How were they phrased? If the result is genuine, why not publish the details of the survey?
Ma likes to brag that his cross-strait policies are endorsed by the US. At a recent hearing of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kin Moy said the US supports Taiwanese engagement with China “at a pace that is consistent with the aspirations of the people on Taiwan.” Is Ma again telling a half-truth?
The protests in the legislature have shown Ma that the public are not comfortable with the way he has tried to ram the trade pact through the legislature.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS