In last year’s nine-in-one local elections, Taiwanese voted against the China-friendly cross-strait policies that the President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration has pushed over the past six-and-a-half years.
Following the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) trouncing at the polls, a dejected Ma stepped down as KMT chairman and his Cabinet resigned en masse.
Having lost public support, the Ma administration will be no more than a caretaker government for the year-and-a-half that it has left in office. In view of this, it ought to rein in its pro-China policies and change tack.
However, the caretaker Cabinet is not just persisting with such policies, but prioritizing them.
Since Ma came into office in 2008, his government has promoted integration with China through a “one China common market.”
Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation chairman and former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) said the future common market will pursue further economic integration within the WTO framework and bring about full liberalization of cross-strait exchanges of goods, personnel, capital, services and information, and eventually go on to achieve complete harmony of economic policies and monetary union.
Reports published on Jan. 30 said that although the draft law on oversight of cross-strait negotiations remains stuck in the legislature, negotiations on the proposed cross-strait trade in goods agreement are moving ahead.
The service trade agreement, signed in June 2013, has not yet been approved by the legislature, which must happen before it can come into effect.
That has not stopped the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Committee, set up under the terms of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, from discussing follow-up arrangements for the service trade agreement. In effect, the authorities have jumped the gun on both agreements.
The KMT’s defeat in the elections was largely due to the Ma administration’s efforts to push the service trade agreement through the legislature, prompting the rise of the student-led Sunflower movement. Yet even now it still wants to jump the gun on these agreements. Why is the lame-duck government in such a rush?
The President Chain Store Corp, which operates 7-Eleven convenience stores, recently announced that, since Sunday last week, three of its stores would provide currency exchange services between Chinese yuan and New Taiwan dollars.
The Taiwan Solidarity Union’s legislative caucus organized a news conference in protest, but the Democratic Progressive Party has said nothing and seems completely unaware of the implications.
The central bank, which is responsible for managing foreign exchange business, has not said anything either.
According to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (管理外匯條例), the authority in charge of foreign exchange business is the central bank, one of its duties being to authorize and supervise banks engaging in foreign exchange operations. President’s 7-Eleven stores are not banks, so having them provide currency exchange services clearly contravenes the terms of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
Why, then, has there been no reaction from the central bank? Is it asleep or in a trance?
If big quantities of yuan start circulating in Taiwan, it is likely to have a big impact on Taiwan’s monetary sovereignty.
Are Taiwanese going to see Siew’s idea of “eventually” achieving complete harmony of economic policies and monetary union become a reality much sooner than even he foresaw?
Wang To-far is a part-time professor of economics at National Taipei University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS