|
ECFA debate: Ma dodges the issues
Sunday, May 02, 2010, Page 8
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.
|
