Can’t we use ‘Taiwan’ in Taiwan?

Thursday, Oct 08, 2009, Page 8

A recent controversy over the use of the word “Taiwan” at an event in Taipei City has highlighted the absurdity of China’s sensitivity to the name and cast doubt on the city government’s commitment to upholding the nation’s dignity.

With the Denver Nuggets and the Indiana Pacers in Taipei this week for exhibition games, preparations were under way at the Taipei Arena ahead of the first game today.

But a banner on the side of the stadium to welcome the US National Basketball Association (NBA) teams was changed at the last minute to replace the word “Taiwan” with the word “Taipei.”

Another victory for Beijing — on Taiwan’s own turf.

The sign that read “Taiwan Welcomes the NBA” became “Taipei Welcomes the NBA.”

This change could only be intended as a gesture to China, signaling that the city hopes to avoid controversy.

It gives the impression that the Taipei City Government and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are more than happy to avoid the name “Taiwan.”

While the city government would be right to want to promote city pride by emphasizing that the capital is hosting the event, it is highly doubtful that this was the motive.

Hosting basketball games with athletes of this caliber is an exciting event for fans of the sport across the country — not just in Taipei. From this perspective, changing the sign was dismissive of the enthusiasm of fans outside the capital.

The episode showcases how often the name “Taiwan” is avoided and, sadly, how little this seems to bother the public.

During election campaigns, or when leaders seek to improve their image in the wake of a scandal or administrative failures, it is common to see politicians don sports uniforms, vests or caps bearing the word “Taiwan.” They make a point of using the word “Taiwan” or “Taiwanese” throughout campaign speeches.

By showing a bit of “Taiwan” pride, politicians hope to bridge the distance between themselves and their constituents — and often they succeed in convincing the latter that their show is genuine.

It is intriguing, then, to see these same politicians drop the word “Taiwan” when they have an excellent opportunity to raise the nation’s visibility at international events.

While Taipei deserves to be rebuked for casting the name “Taiwan” aside at its convenience, the public must realize that it plays a role in such abuses by failing to demand that their leaders stand up for the name. Avoiding the word “Taiwan” is harmful to the nation’s dignity.

The public permits leaders and politicians to treat the word “Taiwan” as disposable. In doing so, it allows its leaders to be disrespectful.

Unless the public demands better of its politicians, it cannot expect to have leaders willing to uphold the nation’s dignity and work toward increasing its international visibility.

An ECFA is just more ‘disaster capitalism’
　

By Wang Shih-Wei 王士維
Thursday, Oct 08, 2009, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration justifies its obstinate pursuit of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China by saying the Chinese market will be a gateway for Taiwanese manufacturers to global markets. One is reminded of Naomi Klein’s writings about how “disaster capitalism” has established itself through global free trade.

It is ironic that China’s economy has grown to its current size on the back of disaster capitalism, particularly since the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

Although the Tiananmen crackdown was widely condemned by the western world, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) used the state of shock in its aftermath to deepen the process of economic liberalization and open the door to foreign investment. With its favorable tariffs and cheap labor, China became the sweatshop of the world and a favorite target for Western investors.

Once its economic clout reached a certain level, China began plundering resources around the world in the name of trade liberalization. In Africa, China has taken advantage of political instability and poverty and fostered dictatorships to promote its interests — all in the name of “economic aid.”

Taiwan has been hit hard by the global financial crisis and our leaders will stick to their China-friendly policies come what may. In so doing, they have fallen into China’s disaster capitalism trap.

Since the advent of Chinese tourist groups, the tourism industry has been making more money. Yet the government failed to take into account the Chinese tourism sector’s integrated operations, in which one operator handles everything, from transport to food and accommodation. The turnover of any one Chinese travel agency is bigger than that of many Taiwanese agencies put together.

Taiwanese travel agencies gain limited benefits from Chinese tourists.

Moreover, China has tight control on the number of tourists coming over, which it can use as a bargaining chip.

Chinese investment is moving into the domestic tourism sector. For example, the online booking service ezTravel (易遊網) has seen the majority of its ownership bought by its biggest Chinese counterpart, Ctrip (攜程).

Chinese-owned firms could some day have a monopoly on Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan.

Although the proposed Taiwan-China memorandum of understanding (MOU) on financial supervision will advance the establishment of a cross-strait currency clearance mechanism and promote liberalization and transparency of financial transactions, the sheer size of China’s banks is overwhelming compared with Taiwan’s handful of financial holdings companies.

If financial markets are deregulated without supplementary measures, even the domestic life and property insurance sectors may be bought out. For example, Taiwan’s Nan Shan Life (南山人壽) could fall into the hands of China’s Primus Financial Holdings (博智).

If this happens, China will have a grip on all of the nation’s financial lifelines.

Meanwhile, makers of display panels and semiconductor wafers, which the government has promoted as key industries, have been moving facilities to China. This is likely to lead not just to capital outflows and higher unemployment, but to the transfer of core technologies. In the end, Taiwan’s high-tech industries will be undermined.

If an ECFA is signed, the result will follow the trend of the powerful gaining more power and the rich-poor gap widening. The end result of free trade is, Klein says, an even greater disaster for the public.

Wang Shih-wei is secretary-general of the Asia-Pacific Elite Interchange Association.