|
The DPP may become
pact’s ‘silent endorser’
By Huang Tien-lin 黃天麟
There is no reason to oppose a debate on the service trade agreement, but the
pan-green camp should be vigilant so they do not walk into yet another trap set
by pro-Chinese media outlets and academics.
The pan-blue camp has said that the reason for proposing a debate is that it
would promote an understanding of the agreement’s importance to Taiwan. This
reason in itself is a trap, because it is a clever way of telling the public
that the agreement really is very important. Yet if it really is so important,
then what is there to debate?
In the same way, the statement that is so often bandied about by both the
pan-blue and the pan-green camps that they want to clarify the agreement’s
advantages and disadvantages for industry is also a trap, because that would
only be beneficial to the agreement’s supporters and not its opponents. A debate
on the pros and cons for individual industries will only end in bickering and
allow the government to take advantage of its information monopoly to praise the
agreement. If talking about pros and cons is what is intended, this could only
take place after an implementation of two or three years. As it is now, the only
winner is the government, which has the power to set the agenda.
The June 2010 debate about the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework
Agreement (ECFA) between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and then-Democratic
Progressive Party chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) ended in this kind of bickering
and failed to clarify the pros and cons of the agreement. In the end, the
government could implement the agreement with the claim that the issue had been
thoroughly debated and discussed, in effect turning its opponents into silent
endorsers.
This is why the service trade agreement debate, if it is focused on explaining
the impact on individual industries, will become yet another endorsement of
government policy.
The real problem with the agreement are the political aims behind it. Trade in
services is not a straightforward economic issue, it is a national security
issue that involves Beijing’s economic warfare aimed at unification with Taiwan.
This is the main point that should be clarified to the Taiwanese public during
the debate. Some of the questions that should be posed are: Why is the
government in such a hurry to sign a service trade agreement with China, instead
of first forging free-trade agreements (FTAs) with friendly states? Why does the
government place trade in services — which involves small businesses at the
grassroots level — before commodity negotiations, when the general approach is
to begin with commodity talks?
Other questions to be asked are why does the government not link the service
trade agreement to an FTA with the US or Japan — or, for that matter, the
Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, or any of the other ASEAN countries
— in order to gain an advantage. All these issues are political questions that
should be brought to the public’s attention during the debate, thoroughly and
without exception.
Furthermore, the possible impact of the agreement on individual salaries,
personal information security and the overall economy must not be overlooked
when setting the agenda for the debate.
To sum up, whether the debate will be effective, open and fair will depend on
the topics and questions. If the organizer focuses the debate on the impact on
individual industries while avoiding the political issues mentioned here, it
will be open to criticism and ridicule for concealing truths, and it will be
responsible for treating both country and people unfairly.
Huang Tien-lin is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Perry Svensson
|
