Almost two weeks after student activists occupied the Legislative Yuan, some people who previously had shown little interest in the cross-strait service trade agreement are now trying to find out what it is all about. Some have even asked if a supervision mechanism for cross-strait agreements should be instituted. Since the issue is complicated, a variety of simplified “service trade agreements for dummies,” dubbed “lazybone’s packs” (懶人包), have been devised and distributed via the Internet.
The purpose of such information tools, compiled by experts, netizens and others by different government agencies, is to explain a complex issue in a simple and easily understood way, so that people of all ages and from all walks of life can grasp the service trade pact which Taiwan and China signed in June last year during the ninth round of cross-strait talks in Shanghai.
For instance, a series of video clips and documents created by National Taiwan University economics department chairwoman Jang Show-ling (鄭秀玲) is a quick guide to the trade agreement and has enlightened many students, while the Ministry of Economic Affairs has introduced its own version, “service-trade-agreement 101,” claiming this can tell people everything they need to know about the deal in only five minutes.
Probably more efficient is central bank Governor Perng Fai-nan’s (彭淮南) seven-point convenience pack, which purportedly takes less than a minute to inform the reader why this trade deal with China is crucial.
However, a netizen has just uploaded several videos of legislative hearings concerning the pact, as well as a detailed elaboration of the agreement’s clauses and its appendix. Watching a couple of hours of this makes one realize that the devil is in the detail.
Both the supporters and critics of the agreement have made good points. However, such information packs may be true or false, helpful or misleading, depending on the perspective or motive for their distribution. For example, for reasons of convenience, many people will likely refer only to YouTube videos or PowerPoint files and not make further efforts to learn more about the pact. This does not allow them to calculate the costs and benefits to the nation, or whether there are policy alternatives.
Thus, guides for dummies can either educate or mislead, whether they are from netizens or the government. They provide basic information that helps the public better understand the outcomes and problems associated with the pact, but both advocates and opponents of the service trade agreement know all too well how to convey messages to their targeted audiences by carefully selecting facts to support their opinions.
It is understood that Taiwanese are regularly exposed to certain kinds of misinformation or biased information from the mass media, opinion leaders and the government on many issues. Insofar as the available information is false, misleading or biased, neither true democracy nor genuine public opinion are allowed their true voice. Therefore, the public needs to do its homework and make its own informed calculations on the merits or deficiencies of alternative policies.
Yet the emergence of so many information packs about the service trade agreement reflects the lapse in the government’s democratic response to the public and its disregard of the public’s right to know the details from the very start of the process. It also represents a growing number of people who are resistant to persuasion by government, corporations and other established interests, while economic inequality prevails and becomes increasingly serious.
So are some netizens fearmongering about the service trade deal with China? It is possible. The government should realize that the proliferation of such information packs are a result of it trying to fool and manipulate the public.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with