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
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030