|
SUNFLOWER SIEGE AFTERMATH: PROFILE: Negative effects drive opposition to service trade pact
Amid public concern over the controversial cross-strait service trade agreement, Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement convener Lai Chung-chiang said in an interview with ‘Liberty Times’ (the sister newspaper of the ‘Taipei Times’) reporter Cheng Chi-fang on March 14 that President Ma Ying-jeou could reap catastrophic consequences if he continued to allow no room for changes to what many have described as a ‘backroom deal.’
Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement convener Lai Chung-chiang gestures during an interview in Taipei on March 14.
Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times
Liberty Times (LT): Several civic groups, including the Democratic Front, have repeatedly raised concerns about the cross-strait agreement since it was signed on June 21 last year. Can you tell us why?
Lai Chung-chiang (賴中強): We have three major concerns about the pact. The first one is its potential impact on people’s livelihood-oriented industries — such as laundry, cleaning, transportation, dining, beauty and wholesale — as well as on the right of employees in these industries to work.
The [President] Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)] administration’s typical response to such concerns is that the cross-strait agreement only opens the nation’s door to Chinese business entrepreneurs and their high-ranking employees and therefore has no bearing on ordinary Taiwanese workers. The administration is apparently thinking of the impact on large-scale manufacturers, rather than on owners of small businesses.
Sure, it would only affect [Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) chairman and chief executive] Morris Chang [張忠謀] and a few managerial-level employees if Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co were to be taken over by a Chinese person. The problem is that most companies in Taiwan’s service sector do not have [the same size and operating scale as TSMC].
On average, a service-related business in Taiwan has about four employees and the vast majority of such companies are micro-businesses whose owners are self-employed.
Take the beauty and hair industry as an example. The Ministry of Economic Affairs said that Chinese-funded beauty salons could help create job opportunities for Taiwanese workers, but according to statistics compiled by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, about 20,000 of the nation’s more than 60,000 hair and beauty salon workers are either self-employed or unpaid family members.
If Chinese businesspeople are allowed to take over such micro-businesses, it could prompt a massive wave of unemployment.
I recently ran into a middle-aged woman who started a small food business after the textile factory where she had worked for years suddenly shut down. The service industry has long been a “harbor of refuge” for manufacturing workers who lose their jobs due to industrial restructuring. If the government throws the service industry into a cutthroat competitive environment created by the cross-strait treaty, it would be an irresponsible thing to do.
Most workers in the service sector are older than their counterparts in other industries, which means it would be harder for them to make a career change if they are forced out of their jobs because of the agreement. Is society ready for [such a dramatic impact]? I do not think so.
Our second major concern is the pact’s potential impacts on Taiwan’s democratic system.
We have all heard of China’s attempts to wreck Hong Kong’s press freedom by having Chinese corporations withdraw advertisements from newspapers whose political stances are not welcomed. The same thing would undoubtedly happen to Taiwanese media once Chinese investors are allowed to operate advertising companies in the country.
As for allowing Chinese businesspeople to invest in Taiwanese banks, it brings back painful memories of a past incident involving Chi Mei Group founder Hsu Wen-long (許文龍).
In 2004, Chi Mei’s China-based Zhenjiang plant was suddenly cut off from loans by local [Chinese] banks, which put the company under tremendous pressure, especially political pressure. A year later, Hsu came forward to support China’s enactment of its much-criticized “Anti-Secession” Law, which authorizes it to use non-peaceful means to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence.] It came as a shock to most people who knew Hsu personally.
That is how Chinese banks deal with China-based Taiwanese businesspeople. The same thing could also happen in Taiwan if we let Chinese investors run or sit on the boards of our local banks.
Our third major concern is the treaty’s potential impacts on the nation’s healthcare and social welfare systems.
With the establishment of international medical care centers in the free economic pilot zones, the plan to permit Chinese investors to manage Taiwanese hospitals could lead to a crowding-out effect that would exacerbate the nation’s perpetual shortage of healthcare workers and prompt more talented doctors to drop out of the National Health Insurance (NHI) system.
That could negatively affect the nation’s healthcare quality and further burden medical workers.
It is unthinkable that the government would be willing to force lawmakers to ratify the treaty at a time when the controversies over it remain unsettled. If deep-pocketed financial corporations want to make money in China, why should we let them do so at the expense of the nation’s grassroots industries?
They are telling us that the nation’s business opportunities could be hampered if we do not let the agreement pass the legislature, but why should we sacrifice Taiwan’s hard-earned freedom and democracy for them?
Social movements usually occur after damage is done. When we saw bulldozers cold-bloodedly tearing down people’s houses, we felt anger and an urge to uphold justice, which prompted us to stand up and take action.
Although the potential impacts the trade agreement could exert would not be felt any time soon because it has yet to take effect, it does not mean there is no problem with it.
We should learn from Hong Kong’s experiences. Those who are still wondering if Chinese-funded commercial companies will go so far as to withdraw advertising to punish disobedient media should just ask Shih Wing-ching (施永青), the founder of Hong Kong’s free daily newspaper AM730.
Last year, China’s state-owned China Construction Bank (Asia) withdrew advertising from AM730, reportedly because of its outspokenness. Most corporations in China are funded by the Chinese government and they have sought to suppress free speech and steer the direction of public opinion by threatening to remove advertisements from news outlets.
What we can do at the moment is to let people know what they would be dealing with should the treaty be ratified.
We may not have the kind of money and resources required to dictate media content like the government and some big corporations do, but we can still let our voices be heard through flyers and the Internet.
A majority of respondents to recent polls said they do not support the agreement. An even greater percentage of those polled were against the treaty’s passage if it is not revised.
LT: Several civic groups have drawn up their own version of “regulations for oversight of cross-strait agreements” and plan to push for their enactment. What is the purpose of this legislation?
Lai: We want to put into law the regulations and the draft bill of the “treaty-making law” because it is the lack of clear rules on the government’s negotiations of treaties with China and other countries that allowed the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] to breach a previously reached inter-party consensus to review the pact clause-by-clause and to push for the treaty’s automatic ratification instead.
Clashes are inevitable if we let both parties “play” without rules.
Taiwan has yet to complete its democratization. We have only seen electoral democracy in the past few decades, which is why the president we voted for still has overwhelming power and is capable of striking backroom deals and dictating the cross-strait treaty. Not only did he keep the legislature and the people out of the negotiations over the agreement, he also forbade any changes to its contents after the signing.
Because of the country’s unfinished democratization, the people are only entitled to decide who governs the country, instead of which direction the country goes. Now that the legislature has proved ineffective in monitoring the government’s treaty negotiations, the ratification of the regulations for oversight of cross-strait agreements and the treaty-making could be the only answer to the treaty conundrum.
LT: How would you respond if the Ma administration pushes the cross-strait pact through the legislature or announces that the treaty will automatically take effect?
Lai: We would demand that each item of the treaty be subjected to meaningful and substantial discussions and that every motion regarding the agreement be sent to concerned legislative committees for deliberation and be put to a vote.
Since the pact was referred to the legislature for review, the government has held 20 public hearings about the agreement to try to explore potential problems.
However, only by allowing lawmakers to conduct a thorough clause-by-clause review of the pact can they work out viable solutions.
In addition, we would take concrete action to pressure the Ma administration into delivering its promises to the people. There is no point in holding public hearings unless the pact is examined clause-by-clause.
If Ma is to resort to uncivilized approaches to bring the agreement into effect and to deny lawmakers the opportunity to make necessary changes to the treaty or draw up supplementary measures, he will have to face people’s wrath and pay a dear price for his reckless actions.
Translated by Stacy Hsu, staff writer
source: Taipei Times
|
