Two-and-a-half years have passed since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) changed the name of the cross-strait trade and finance agreement, which was still on the drawing board at that time, from Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement to Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Ever since then, the Ma administration has insisted that the ECFA is a purely economic agreement and does not involve any matters of sovereignty or politics. That was Ma’s rationale for not submitting the ECFA to a referendum — and the government turned down proposals signed by members of the public for a referendum on the ECFA four times.
Government officials and departments, including the Mainland Affairs Council, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the premier, the Presidential Office and others, have repeated the same narrative on innumerable occasions.
Following Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) refusal to recognize the existence of the so-called “1992 consensus,” Ma and his officials have changed their story. Now they say that it was only because the “1992 consensus” already existed as a basis — that is, a precondition — that Taiwan and China were able to sign the ECFA.
However, there is a clear contradiction between the two narratives. First, the government said the ECFA was a purely economic agreement and did not involve any political aspects, but now it is telling us that the ECFA was signed on the basis of the thoroughly political “1992 consensus.” This change of tack has stirred up quite a storm.
Was the Ma administration fooling the Taiwanese public with the story it told before the ECFA was signed last year, or is it the current version that is meant to pull the wool over people’s eyes?
The legislators who deliberated the draft agreement last year are still in their posts. So it is their responsibility to help clear the doubts from people’s minds by giving the public a proper explanation.
When they were inspecting, discussing and interpreting the text of the ECFA last year, did they realize that the ECFA depended on the “1992 consensus”? Did they exercise their power of consent as legislators based on such an understanding?
Considering the importance of the “1992 consensus” as a political condition, if the Taiwanese and Chinese governments held any form of negotiation beforehand, and if they agreed to take the “consensus” as the political basis for the signing of the ECFA, then the Ma administration is all the more obliged to show us a written agreement to that effect — one officially signed by both sides. That would help to dispel the controversy and it would demonstrate the government’s responsible attitude.
They must be disabused of the belief that it is enough to talk about such an agreement without presenting any proof, and then expect the public to accept a notion that appeared out of thin air and carries significant political risk for Taiwan.
If the government is unable to produce an officially signed document, then, given that the governments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are unchanged, there should still be time for them to sign a retroactive agreement, though any such agreement would still have to be sent to the legislature for deliberation and retroactive approval. Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still has over half the seats in the legislature, so he should have nothing to worry about. Then the agreement could be officially incorporated into the ECFA.
Of course, no matter who forms the next government, they are likely to face a new wave of calls for an ECFA referendum, this time focused on the issue of its basis — namely the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Li Ching-lieh is a professor of electrical engineering at Tamkang University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS