I never expected that I would become a household name. I never wanted to become a public figure, and a few years ago, when former vice premier Paul Chiu (邱正雄) asked me to be a member of the National Communications Commission, I politely declined.
My contact with the cross-strait service trade agreement was entirely accidental. One day in June last year, as I was washing my hair, I happened to read Rex How’s (郝明義) article “We have less than 24 hours (我們剩不到2十4小時了).” At that time, the government and China had just signed the agreement. As an academic who has spent a long time studying industrial economics, I felt that it was necessary to understand the agreement, and so I took the plunge.
I realized that the agreement was unequal, not only as it would have a massive impact on the public, but also because the sectors that Taiwan would unilaterally open up to China — advertising, printing, the wholesale and retail sale of books, telecommunications, transportation — would affect Taiwan’s freedom of speech and national security, and even endanger democracy and freedom. Just thinking about it kept me awake at night.
Influenced by Sun Chen (孫震), economics professor and former president of National Taiwan University, who used to be an active participant in public debate, I submitted an article to the media on July 1 last year in which I attempted to explain the pact and its possible consequences.
When I could not find any explanations or assessment reports by the government, as the chairwoman of the university’s Public Economics Research Center, I organized nine forums and invited academics and experts in economics, journalism, law and telecommunications to participate in discussions from July to December last year.
In addition to creating 15 slide presentations of the research presented at the forums, we selected the three most important sectors that would be affected by the agreement for an impact assessment.
This information is available on the center’s Web site and at www.facebook.com/renegotiation.
Over the past nine months, we have made a great effort to complete these measures — work which should have been done by the government.
KMT Legislator Chang Ching-chung’s (張慶忠) decision to pass the agreement 30 seconds into a joint legislative committee meeting has met a strong backlash, and everyone wants to know what is in the pact. The information we have put on Facebook is the only reference material available in Taiwan. This has been termed a “service trade agreement for dummies,” but when the government got wind of it, instead of providing the public with a better version, it began to discredit us by saying we were endangering the country.
Lately, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and other officials, ministers and leaders of industry have again been telling the public that the advantages of this agreement outweigh its shortcomings as “China is opening up 80 items to Taiwan, while Taiwan is only opening 64 items to China.” They do not seem to understand that opening up the wholesale and retail sector will include — in addition to weaponry, agricultural products, drugstores and pharmacies — the wholesale and retail sale of books. Still Ma says that the publishing industry will not be deregulated.
Another problem is that the provision of cross-border services is unequal. Based on my understanding, these pretty, but empty statements which all avoid being negative are made by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research’s WTO and Regional Trade Agreement Center.
It is expected that the proposed conference on trade will be a farce dominated by slogans.
Anyone, high official or ordinary person, should look at the specific commitments made in the attachments to the agreement before they decide whether to support it. It will have a direct impact on our jobs and living standards, and it has nothing to with whether you support the pan-blue or the pan-green camp
Jang Show-ling is chairwoman of the Public Economics Research Center at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Thursday last week met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at an APEC summit in Thailand. The meeting made front-page news in Japan the following day. Three years ago, when then-Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe visited Beijing to meet with Xi, no one questioned Abe’s attitude toward China, as the conservative parties in Japan had been spearheaded by Abe. However, Kishida could easily be labeled as pro-China, as he hails from Hiroshima — a place known for its anti-war, anti-nuclear movements — and was once the director of the Japan-China Friendship Association of Hiroshima.
It is quite the irony when former British prime minister Boris Johnson — a buffoon who for far too long was taken seriously — is branded a buffoon for saying something deadly serious. Following Johnson’s withering criticism of China at a business forum in Singapore on Wednesday last week, the event’s organizer, Michael Bloomberg, apologized to attendees, saying that Johnson was “trying to be amusing rather than informative and serious.” However, Johnson’s characterization of China as a “coercive autocracy” that had showed “a candid disregard for the rule of international law” was spot-on. His comments evoked the wisdom of the Austrian-British philosopher
Although internal Chinese politics are largely defined by meticulously concocted mysteries, it is an open secret that the battle for who will ascend to the highest echelons of Zhongnanhai is decided at the Beidaihe resort. It is where factions within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) engage in horse-trading over leadership selection and delegate appointments long before the party’s national congress. What unfolded at last month’s 20th National Congress was predetermined at the Beidaihe gathering in August. In this context, the CCP, and particularly Chinese President and CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平), used the event to project power and party unity.
As campaign fever for tomorrow’s local elections turns white hot, supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have been going head to head on social media. The latest row was triggered by a Facebook post on Nov. 13 by songwriter and KMT supporter Liu Chia-chang (劉家昌), who rebuked United Microelectronics Corp founder Robert Tsao (曹興誠) for advocating independence. “Although you regained your ROC [Republic of China] citizenship after returning from Singapore, you continue to help the green independents by guarding their flank,” Liu wrote, adding that it was an “insult to the nation.” “When [KMT