Sun, May 02, 2010 page8

• THE LIBERTY TIMES EDITORIAL: ECFA debate: Ma dodges the issues

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Last Sunday, the leaders of Taiwan’s governing and main opposition parties held the first-ever debate on the government’s proposal to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. Disappointingly, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who has been pushing for an ECFA, used the occasion to play word games, showing off his quick wit and nimble tongue, while failing to give a clear and complete account of his government’s policies.

  Instead, he used the televised debate as a propaganda exercise. Notably, Ma evaded a number of major issues. What is the ECFA, exactly? How far have the negotiations gone and what is being talked about? What goods and services are included in the “early harvest” list of items that will enjoy lower or no tariffs if an ECFA is signed, and why can’t the government make the list public? What mechanism exists to supervise the negotiation process? What impact will the ECFA have on Taiwan, especially on the employment market? How much damage will it do to Taiwan’s sovereignty? What is the government’s strategy for Taiwan’s development? Will the Ma administration lean completely toward China, or will it seek further integration into the wider world?

  Instead of addressing these major issues, Ma stressed minor aspects. He chose to beat around the bush rather than giving the public a clear account.

  These issues are key to Taiwan’s survival and development. The Ma administration would have us believe that an ECFA is the magic formula to cure all Taiwan’s ills and reinvigorate its economy.

  If that were true, Ma should present objective expert assessments to persuade the public and gain popular support, rather than use a string of vague and emotive adjectives. He should not use government departments as a giant propaganda machine.

  Ma’s performance in this debate only confirmed the public’s worries. Confronted by increasing public opposition to an ECFA, the Ma administration has not been able to win people over through reason. Instead, it still thinks it can fool people by bombarding them with ­propaganda and that they will end up seeing an ECFA as a fragrant flower or medicine, instead of the poisonous weed it really is.

  During the debate, Ma should have begun by telling the public that an ECFA is a sell-out charter, economic in name, but political in purpose. Instead, he sought to hide this truth.

  For one thing, an ECFA is not a free-trade agreement between two countries. It is an agreement between two areas, or even between a locality on the one hand and a central authority on the other.

  It is basically the same as the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement signed in 2003 between the Chinese central government and the local government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

  Another cause for concern is that more than 40 percent of Taiwan’s external trade is dependent on China. If Taiwan goes ahead and signs an ECFA, its economy will become inextricably tied to China’s.

  That would allow China to use economic means to push for unification. When that time comes, Taiwan will have no cards left to play, and will have no option but to give up without a fight.

  Next, Ma should have used the debate to tell the public what products and services are included in the “early harvest” lists proposed by each side. During the course of ECFA negotiations, the Ma government has promised that it will not import more Chinese agricultural goods to Taiwan, it will not allow Chinese workers to come here, and that the survival of vulnerable industries will not be sacrificed.

  China, for its part, keeps saying it is willing to “concede benefits” to Taiwan. If the two sides were telling the truth, then one would expect the Ma government to make its version of the “early harvest” list public so that it could trumpet the benefits it is trying to get for Taiwan.

  Why beat around the bush and give the impression that they are up to no good? The hush-hush approach suggests that the “early harvest” list may well be harmful to Taiwan. That would explain why the government wants to sign the agreement first and announce the contents later, by which time the public will have no chance to object.

  The most important thing is that Ma should promise to let the people decide through a referendum whether an ECFA should be signed. Since Ma took office, Taiwan has already signed 12 agreements with China without putting any of them to a referendum.

  At the most, they were submitted to be examined by the legislature, and, in cases where no decision was made within one month in which the legislature was in session, they came into force automatically, as laid out in the Act Governing Relations Between Taiwan and China (兩岸人民關係條例).

  In other words, these agreements have been signed between the Ma government and a hostile country — China — without being monitored by the legislature or the public taking part in the decision-making process. In short, the government pushed the agreements through unilaterally.

  Now, as it prepares to sign an ECFA, the government is playing the same tricks again. The government is only willing to submit the agreement to the legislature because, given that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) holds an absolute majority of legislative seats, any reference or examination by that body is no more than a formality.

  There is no mechanism to act as a real check on the government’s actions. So, if the Ma government is willing to hear the vox populi and play by the rules of the democratic game, it should let Taiwan’s 23 million people decide the fate of the ECFA.

  Holding the debate between the president and the opposition leader was a step forward for democracy. However, what the public wants is not just an appearance of progress, but tangible outcomes. Several TV channels broadcast the debate, and many other media reported on it.

  The president could have seized this opportunity to explain the content, of his policies to the public in a rational and professional way. Instead, the debate degenerated into a platform for Ma to mouth off. His discourse was full of emotional language and electoral sloganeering. Avoiding the issues, he gave empty answers to concrete questions. He sought to agitate the Taiwanese public and threaten them at the same time.

  Worst of all, in his attempts to promote an ECFA, Ma didn’t hesitate to denigrate Taiwan’s past economic achievements, calling the period in which Taiwan was governed by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) “eight lost years,” and ignored the fact that the DPP performed better in office than he has.

  He degraded Taiwan to the rank of North Korea and has forgotten the failure of his “633” campaign promise to achieve 6 percent economic growth, 3 percent unemployment and US$30,000 per capita GDP, which turned out to be Taiwan’s greatest-ever political hoax.

  This president’s words are not to be believed, nor are his actions to be trusted. The only way forward for Taiwan’s people is to decide things for themselves through a referendum.

  TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG AND TAIJING WU
• Most Popular

  • 1

    US bolstering first island chain deterrence: NSB report

  • 2

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 3

    Taiwan, Poland to codevelop drones

  • 4

    Climber to attempt free solo of 101

  • 5

    YouBike to require insurance for all riders from Jan. 1