Recently, Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-juch (張家祝) publicly criticized several academics for spreading what he said was false information about the cross-strait service trade agreement. He also said that they were hurting Taiwan by obstructing development, a claim that was absurd and even laughable.
As a matter of fact, the issue over the pact is not very complex. There are two basic principles to making any national policy. They are based on the premises of openness and transparency: cost-benefit analysis and distribution of benefits.
First, in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, the benefit of a decision needs to outweigh the cost. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says repeatedly that Taiwan’s gains will outweigh the losses of signing the pact. That being so, the Ma administration should clearly list all of the advantages of signing.
Currently, the advantages listed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs are mainly based on the evaluation report on the economic impact of the cross-strait service trade agreement conducted by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research in July last year. However, the final conclusion of the report was that all the prospective effects of the service trade agreement are positive, but the scope of possible benefits is unclear. Without an evaluation on the impact to local industries, the report has become a laughingstock in academic circles.
Second, in terms of the distribution of benefits, even if gains outweigh losses after the service trade agreement is ratified, will these benefits be concentrated in the hands of conglomerates? If so, how can this problem be resolved? We should pay attention that this is not just about using taxpayers’ money to cover the losses of certain sectors. Instead, this is in fact a matter of justice regarding the distribution of benefits. For this part, no assessment report has been forthcoming from the ministry.
Finally, it must be added that since the controversy began, the government has never had a leg to stand on when it comes to its position on transparency. Otherwise, the ministry would give a straight answer to the question of who signed the pact with its 24 articles in the name of Taiwan and China, and how the list was decided on. If it cannot even address these fundamental concerns, is it really an injustice to call the agreement opaque?
I alerted the ministry to the above problems in December last year, but it has refused to right the wrongs, and repeatedly encourages the public to read the full text of the pact carefully, whilst also trying to attract public support by disseminating a short seven-page PowerPoint file which is in effect the service trade agreement for dummies — called the “lazybones’ pack” (懶人包) in Chinese.
Chang should read the 38-page-long PowerPoint file about the impacts of the pact on Taiwan prepared by the director of National Taiwan University’s economics department, Jang Show-ling (鄭秀玲). On the last page of the presentation, Jang concludes that perhaps cross-strait negotiations could learn from US-South Korean talks. Judging from the conclusion, it seems people like Jang are not opposed to the signing of a service trade agreement; they are opposed to the opacity of the agreement that the Ma administration is trying to push through.
Moreover, more seriously, ignorant officials such as Chang only know how to curry favor with their superiors, but do not know what the problems are. They even criticize academics for hurting the nation despite those academics’ efforts to protect the future of Taiwan’s economy. Exactly who is hurting the nation now? The answer seems to be self-evident.
Lin Hsuan-chu is an associate professor in National Cheng Kung University’s accountancy department.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers