Taiwan Buddhist master: 'No Taiwanese'
　

WHO’S WHO? : Some participants at a world Buddhist forum said that there were obvious signs of political meddling in what should have been a religious event
　

By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009, Page 1
　

Buddhist Master and founder of the Fo Kuang Shan monastery Hsing Yun (星雲) came under fire as he arrived back in Taiwan yesterday for the second half of the World Buddhist Forum.

The criticism came as details of a series of comments Hsing Yun made while in China came to light as he and about 800 Buddhist leaders from more than 10 countries arrived in Taipei on four flights from China.

During a press conference at the forum on Friday in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, Hsing Yun said that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one family. There are no Taiwanese in Taiwan and Taiwanese are all Chinese.”

“Which Taiwanese is not Chinese?” he asked. “They are Chinese just like you are. We are all brothers and sisters.”

Hsing Yun also said that opening the forum in China and closing it in Taiwan was especially meaningful because it would enhance cross-strait exchanges and help the unification of the two sides, the Hong Kong-based newspaper Ta Kung Pao reported on Saturday.

“The more [cross-strait] exchange we have, the more mixed we will be. Then we won’t be able to distinguish who’s Mainland [Chinese] and who’s Taiwanese — and we will naturally become unified,” Hsing Yun was quoted as saying.

The forum — organized by Buddhist leaders from Taiwan and China — opened on Friday in China before moving to Taiwan yesterday.

Although organizers said the forum was purely a religious event, political remarks were heard throughout the meeting, drawing criticism from some Buddhists.

Daphne Young (楊馥華), a Taiwanese Buddhist and a member of the support group Taiwan Friends of Tibet, said the forum was a good example of political meddling in religion.

“The forum opens in China and closes in Taiwan — it’s obvious that they’re trying to create the impression that Taiwan is part of China,” Young said. “From what Taiwanese Buddhist leaders said at the forum, it’s also obvious that they are politically motivated.”

Young said it was ironic that China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs chief Ye Xiaowen (葉小文) attended the forum.

“Ye is the main person behind the new law regulating reincarnation of monks in Tibetan Buddhism, which destroys a core tradition in Tibetan Buddhism,” she said.

Tibetan Buddhists believe that spiritual leaders return through reincarnation. A set of procedures exists to identify reincarnated spiritual leaders. However, China adopted a law last year that stipulates that all reincarnations have to receive state approval.

“If [the Buddhist leaders] are benevolent enough, they should pay some attention to Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet who are repressed by the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] regime,” Young said.

Another senior Taiwanese Buddhist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had been invited to both last year’s and this year’s World Buddhist Forum, but rejected the invitation “because I don’t want to become a CCP tool in its unification war.”

Forum spokesman Chinese Buddhist Master Shih Mingsheng (釋明生) had earlier said that the Dalai Lama was not invited because he is a “separatist” who has tried to “divide China.”

Dawa Tsering, chairman of the Religious Foundation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, said that while he believes any form of religious exchange is a positive activity, “it is not when it becomes a political tool of the CCP.”

At the beginning of the forum, the 11th Panchen Lama — the second-highest Tibetan spiritual leader appointed by the Chinese government in 1995, but rejected by most Tibetan Buddhists — delivered a speech praising the CCP, saying it had brought prosperity to Tibet and that Chinese enjoy full freedom of religion under CCP rule.

In May 1995, the Dalai Lama chose a six-year-old boy as the 11th Panchen Lama. The boy and his family disappeared soon after and have not been heard from since.

Relying on China is a dangerous road to take
　

By Wu Rong-i 吳榮義
Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009, Page 8

On March 22, many people attended a forum held by Taiwan Thinktank in Kaohsiung City. They chose to participate in the event because they were worried about the “economic cooperation framework agreement” (ECFA) that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is about to sign with China and the severe economic downturn and loss of political autonomy that Taiwan could suffer as a result.

From an economic perspective, any form of integration may trigger a decline in autonomy, especially when the economic scale of the two nations in question differ greatly. This is the exact reason why the UK is unwilling to join the “Eurozone.” Despite this, London remains the world’s biggest financial center.

After they both signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with China, the economies of Hong Kong and Macau seemed to prosper. What actually happened is that they lost their autonomy after they were made to rely on China’s economy. Last July Macau’s gaming stocks fell by 20 percent when Beijing announced tighter visa policies and tens of thousands of Macanese lost their jobs. This is a prime example of the dangers of signing economic agreements with China.

From a political perspective, if we were to lose our economic autonomy, the next step would be the formation of a politically based “one-China market.” In the face of much opposition from within Taiwan, the government has repeatedly reaffirmed that an “ECFA is a purely economic issue that involves neither politics nor sovereignty.”

The government has also emphasized that “we will open up our economy in whatever way is beneficial to us and not open up those parts that will be unbeneficial to us.” But academic theories and mounting evidence show that an ECFA is more than a purely economic issue it has deep political connotations.

Politics will always be a factor when a country establishes closer economic ties with another nation. For example, the first free trade agreement the US ever signed was signed with Israel, a country that has contributed little to the US economy. This shows that the US signed this agreement for political, not economic reasons.

Research gained from computable general equilibrium models shows China’s industries and overall exports will be negatively affected after signing an ECFA with Taiwan, so why is China still willing to do so? Obviously, China’s real goal is to use economics and trade to expedite unification.

I am not against Taiwan carrying out economic integration with other countries or areas. However, we need to make sure that things are equal and fair between both parties of any agreement. Taiwan’s biggest problem now is that it is overly reliant on China and it is simply too risky to put all our eggs in one basket. As soon as an ECFA is signed, more of Taiwan’s industries will move to China, where costs are lower. Once we become reliant on China, Beijng will be able to simply pull the plug on our economy to “punish” us if they hear any “rhetoric” from Taiwan that upsets them.

We cannot rely on China, which is a country with lower wage levels than us, to help develop our economy in the long-term. If we do rely on China and develop even closer relations with it, wages in Taiwan will drop and unemployment will rise rapidly. We will become increasingly entwined in Chinese politics. Once this happens, what will we have left to pass on to future generations?

Wu Rong-i is a board member at Taiwan Thinktank and a former vice premier.