Two weeks ago, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) debated the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. Now that the dust has settled, two things seem clear. One is that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems to hold most of the cards. Ma vowed to forge ahead with the deal regardless of the debate and, after his better than expected performance, he has no reason to reconsider.
The other is that the DPP wanted a public debate and got it. Tsai presented herself well and gained valuable exposure as a rising star on the political scene. However, she failed to deliver a decisive blow. With the deal due to be signed next month, Tsai is now reduced to calling for public protest, while supporters continue to push a referendum that is unlikely to be held.
The DPP seems to be running out of options — which does not mean the fight is over. ECFA negotiations continue and even after it is inked, changes are possible. DPP lawmakers have vowed to repeal the accord if they win a majority in 2012.
However, impassioned claims like this suggest it may be time to take stock — on both sides.
Ma, whose advisers seem to be giving him better guidance than before, should be pleased with his debate performance and the ECFA’s progress generally. Free-trade agreements are always hard to sell, especially when power relations are so unequal. Ma and the KMT have also been careful to avoid gloating and to continue reassuring voters that they will be protected, albeit by way of meaningless sound bites, as Tsai points out.
However, to advance his trade policy beyond his we-have-no-other-choice argument, Ma must do two things. First, he must add substance to his reassurances. This includes information about what is in the ECFA, balanced projections of gains and losses, assurances that backup plans and other trade pacts are in the works, programs for retraining and support in industries negatively affected and some indication that security concerns will be addressed.
Second, he must show a greater willingness to concede that Taiwanese have good reason to be worried. Dismissiveness and condescension have often been the KMT’s — and Ma’s — modus operandi. Ma would do well to recall that whatever an ECFA’s benefits, they will take time and results will be mixed. Even if the pact turns out well, it may not benefit a party that treats public fear as part of the cost of doing business.
As for the DPP, Tsai has had a lesson. Sensible questions and reasoned argument fared poorly against evasions and canned assurance. In her words, Ma won the debate with “political propaganda” and she lost it because she was not good at political talk.
Also, options still on the table must be carefully considered. The DPP must think about the consequences if voters approve the agreement. What then?
Public demonstrations raise awareness, but they are also dangerous. People get hurt and the DPP would be held responsible. Surely little is added to party esteem when legislative members resort to violence against bills they cannot block by legal means.
Those who promise repeal should remember that by 2012 the economy is likely to have improved. If ECFA is proven not to be the reason, the KMT will claim otherwise. It will also quote DPP politicians, including Tsai, who promise to cancel the pact, calling such promises a threat to newfound prosperity.
What the DPP needs most is a credible plan for engagement with China. Tsai’s offer of talks based on no political preconditions is nothing new. However, former vice president Annette Lu’s (呂秀蓮) warning last week against any such engagement suggests that Chinese demands are the least of Tsai’s worries. Whatever Tsai learned about politics in her recent encounter with Ma, it may serve her best in managing her party.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS