Some people make decisions based on their gut, while others spend time to consider the gains and losses before taking a shot. Politicians are no different: Some initiate policies according to instinct, while others seek hard facts and analyze the details before making up their minds.
Regarding the just-signed cross-Taiwan Strait service trade pact, it seems that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has denied Taiwanese a full understanding of the contents of the agreement, expecting them to just go with the government’s instinct toward opening the domestic market.
Under the service trade pact, 64 Taiwanese industries will be opened to Chinese investment, covering e-commerce, transportation, finance, medical care, nursing, theater, funeral planning, beauty parlors and car leasing, while China will open up 80 industries to Taiwan in return.
Despite the large scope, covering many industries, the government has not permitted the public knowledge of any details in advance. The government has neither informed the affected industries about the potential impact nor invited them to offer their input.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) policymakers not only kept a distance from opposition parties regarding the trade pact, but even kept it secret from high-ranking members of their own party, including Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平).
On Friday in his personal blog, national policy adviser and publisher Rex How (郝明義) — who supported Ma in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections — strongly criticized the government over the trade pact for “overlooking the sensitivity in cross-strait issues,” “black-box operation” in policymaking, “ignorance and stupidity about China,” “arrogant attitudes toward local industries’ needs” and “lacking any sympathy for Taiwan’s small and medium-sized businesses.”
How also said it clearly showed the “chaotic decisionmaking process and inappropriate practices of the government regarding its cross-strait policies.”
Ma’s government can do better than this.
Policymakers should make the case for further trade normalization with China by explaining to the public why the cross-strait service trade pact is a good idea and how its impacts on domestic service industries will be managed.
This way they can address concerns raised by opposition parties and various local industries, such as which industries would face the most harm and what government measures will be in place before implementation.
This is simply the kind of basic information that should have been provided for public discussion prior to signing the trade pact.
Ma’s government says it listened to public dissatisfaction after its policy U-turns on fuel and electricity prices, in the capital gains tax revision, in the controversial amendment to the Accounting Act (會計法) and in the proposed 12-year education program.
Yet public dismay continues because this government has developed a tendency to push forward major policies through “policy ambush,” by blind-siding opposition parties and the public.
The service trade pact is yet another example of the government’s modus operandi. However, this time it is Taiwan’s small and medium businesses that will suffer.
The government has warned of economic difficulties if the domestic market is not liberalized, yet the question is whether the service trade agreement is a good deal for the nation, or more a concession to big business made on a policymaker’s hunch.
Until the government makes an effort to communicate with the public, the legislature should hold off on giving the green light to the cross-strait service trade agreement. A policy without any transparency is one lacking credibility. Hence there should be no rush to execute it before it has been substantiated.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS