|
Public opinion should be heeded
Sunday, Apr 25, 2010, Page 8
Today the leaders of the nation’s two main political parties, President Ma Ying-jeou
(馬英九), who doubles as chariman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and Tsai
Ing-wen (蔡英文), chairperson of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), are to
debate a proposed economic framework agreement (ECFA) with China. This comes at
a time when public suspicion and anger over an ECFA is at an all-time high.
Two days ago the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) submitted a petition with 110,000
signatories to the Central Election Commission (CEC), calling for a referendum
on the issue, and is due to deliver a second petition next week. The DPP, which
has also called for a referendum and submitted petitions in conjunction with
more than 50 social groups, has announced that it will do everything in its
power to oppose the government if it insists on signing an ECFA. Several social
groups, the Southern Taiwan Society (台灣南社) among them, have already had enough
of the KMT cozying up to the Chinese; with the closed-door deals; the insistence
on the “one China” framework; the selling out of workers in this country; and
with the capitulation of our rights, and therefore took to the streets of
Kaohsiung yesterday to voice their frustrations. The public is deeply suspicious
of the ECFA, and this is why Ma needs to come clean and tell them clearly what
it’s about during today’s debate.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was at pains to point out that, as Taiwan
and China are both member nations of the WTO, they should work within the
framework of that organization to sign a free-trade agreement (FTA). Ma has
decided to play it differently and has abandoned the idea of an FTA between two
sovereign nations in favor of an ECFA, essentially an agreement between a
central power and a subordinate region: He is hoping to trade in Taiwan’s
sovereignty for concessions from China, selling it out and turning it into a new
Hong Kong or Macau.
The government has said that the ECFA will not broach the concepts of
sovereignty or unification as it is an economic trade agreement. We have seen
this kind of reasoning in dealings with China before: It is a blatant ploy to
strip Taiwan of its sovereignty and its government. They want Taiwan to be seen
internationally, and in practice, as a part of the “one China.” If you want a
concrete example, look no further than how we now use the name “Chinese Taipei”
in international forums, and how we shy away from using our national title,
national anthem or national flag in our own country.
The Ma administration is treating China like it is a normal country harboring no
evil intent toward Taiwan. Not only is this belief far from reality, but to
think that we will benefit from an ECFA really does beggar belief.
Over the last couple of years the only thing we have seen the government do is
increase our reliance on China. The ECFA is the main cog in the government’s
strategy for dealing with China, which has been trying everything, however
preposterous, to push it through.
In its promotional materials, the government has gone out of its way to pull the
wool over the public’s eyes wherever it can. While seeking to frighten people
with talk of “marginalization” if an ECFA is not signed, these materials make no
mention of the high risk that, once the agreement is in place, China will
continue to obstruct the signing of FTAs between Taiwan and other countries.
After employing academics to do background research on signing an ECFA, the Ma
administration then adjusted the data to its liking. Some assumptions in the
research, such as that there will be full employment, are unrealistic. It goes
without saying that the academics’ report does not attempt to assess the
political and security threats posed to Taiwan by the ECFA. You get the feeling
we are being led on as far as the ECFA process has been concerned, clinging to
one-sided expectations that China will do Taiwan some short-term economic
favors, but with no consideration whatsoever for the political maneuvers that
are bound to follow.
The administration’s promotional materials also present the ECFA as having only
benefits for Taiwan — only profits and no losses. The Council of Labor Affairs’
claim that only 63 workers in Kaohsiung City would be impacted by the agreement
is a striking example.
Despite having turned its propaganda machine on full blast, the government’s
arguments are so oblique that the great majority of people still have no idea
what the ECFA is about. In fact, even many government officials are still in the
dark. Having produced perhaps the biggest propaganda flop in history, Ma’s
government is now trying to intimidate uncooperative local governments into
going along with its promotional campaign by threatening to withhold budgets if
they don’t.
To the public at large, the administration says: “With us in charge, you don’t
need to worry about anything.” Despite their incompetence and China-friendly
track, our leaders seem completely oblivious to the public’s loss of faith in
them even though this is clearly reflected in Ma’s consistently poor public
opinion ratings.
Still the government persists in negotiating with China behind closed doors and
refuses outright calls to reveal the “early harvest” list of goods and services
that will enjoy lower or no tariffs if an ECFA is signed. It also persists in
fudging the issue of whether the ECFA should be subject to examination and
oversight by those elected to represent public opinion. Although the government
says that an ECFA draft will be put before the legislature, that body is
completely dominated by the ruling party and has allowed previous cross-strait
agreements to go straight into effect without properly examining their contents.
How can the public be expected to accept a legislative safeguard that exists
only in name?
The demand for a referendum on the ECFA is a call for a direct expression of
public opinion. This is a move that the public has been forced to take after
losing faith in the authorities in light of this government’s one-sided
pro-China leanings and the legislature’s failure to carry out its duties. Public
support for the referendum proposal can be measured by people’s enthusiastic
participation in the first signature-gathering phase of the referendum process.
This has forced the Ma government to change its tune, declaring that it was “not
opposed” to a referendum.
However, the KMT and its party-state machine have always been afraid of direct
expressions of public opinion, as exposed by the legislature’s last-minute veto
on a motion to submit the ECFA to a popular vote. We can now see how the Ma
government-legislative-party machine really regards the direct expression of
public opinion.
However, the fact remains that Taiwan is a democratic country. If, following
today’s ECFA debate, the Ma government persists in abandoning national interest
and ignoring public opinion by obstructing an ECFA referendum, then it should
beware the consequences. The Taiwanese public, having little trust in Ma’s
government anymore, will definitely not allow him and his government to carry on
unchecked with its go-it-alone policies.
|
