|
Welfare groups pan
ambiguity of service pact
By Alison Hsiao / Staff reporter
More than a dozen social welfare and medical groups yesterday criticized the
government over the vagueness of the wording and omission of key terms in the
cross-strait service trade agreement, demanding clear answers to doubts raised
over the opening up of the long-term healthcare and medical service sub-sectors
to Chinese investment under the pact.
The groups made the remarks at a public hearing held by the Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) caucus.
Cross-Strait Agreement Watch convener Lai Chung-chiang (賴中強) and DPP Legislator
Wu Ping-jui (吳秉叡) panned the government for delaying a public hearing that it
had been supposed to hold before signing the agreement.
Lai added that the pact must be subjected to clause-by-clause review by the
legislature, as this is what any democratic country would do.
The government was either being incredibly ignorant and negligent of Taiwanese’s
welfare, or it was pursuing its own agenda because otherwise there is no need to
rush carelessly through negotiations to sign an agreement that has no clear
benefits for the people it affects, the groups said, pointing particularly to
the clauses on health and social services included in the deal.
Wang Jung-chang (王榮璋), secretary-general for the League of Welfare
Organizations, said that while the Civil Code clearly stipulates that social
welfare institutions are “not-for-profit,” the pact says Taiwan is to allow
Chinese service providers to invest in these institutions in “partnership” with
Taiwanese service providers.
“Allowing Chinese capital to ‘invest’ and form ‘partnerships’ with local service
providers implies the for-profit operations and the distribution of profits at
the end of each business year,” Wang said. “Are we saying that the government is
relaxing the rules to allow all of the nation’s social welfare institutions to
become profit-making enterprises? Or just those with Chinese investment?”
“If an institution is nonprofit, what is the point of Chinese firms investing in
them?” Wang asked. “If what they want is to make a donation, we welcome Chinese
millionaires like Chen Guangbiao (陳光標) to feel free to do so, but what we are
concerned about is that the quality of service for those who do not have a voice
not be compromised.”
Chen Su-chun (陳素春), an official from the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Social
and Family Affairs Administration, stressed that the nonprofit character of
social welfare institutions would not change under the agreement, but parried
the question of whether the government agreed to include a definition of and
restrictions on the establishment of social welfare institutions in the pact.
An even bigger problem is that most of the nation’s welfare institutions for
senior citizens are for-profit in practice and so those in need of capital will
welcome Chinese investment, which will accelerate the commercialization of these
services, Foundation for the Welfare of the Elderly secretary-general Wu Yu-chin
(吳玉琴) said.
|
