An open response, part 2
On behalf of the Government of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, I am writing in response to the “Open letter to Taiwan’s president” cosigned by 26 persons and published by the Taipei Times on May 21 expressing concerns about transparency in our government’s cross-strait policymaking processes. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a number of misunderstandings in this regard.
1. Affirmation of the ROC’s cross-strait policy
In its cross-strait policymaking, this administration has always firmly upheld the ROC’s sovereignty. It has never changed and never will change its insistence on the principle of “putting Taiwan first for the benefit of the people.”
In the overall national interest, we have resumed institutionalized cross-strait negotiations, replacing confrontation with dialogue. Under the precondition of parity and dignity, the two sides have conducted three rounds of talks and have signed nine agreements and a joint statement on investment, which have advanced the normalization of cross-strait economic exchanges and strengthened protections for the financial assets of the people of Taiwan.
Surveys commissioned by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) — such as those conducted by National Chengchi University, Berkeley Marketing Research and China Credit Information Service — reveal that the majority of people in Taiwan believe that cross-strait relations have become more relaxed. About 70 percent of respondents were satisfied with the cross-strait agreements and more than 60 percent believe the agreements will have a positive influence on Taiwan’s economy. Meanwhile, most respondents think that national sovereignty has not been denigrated.
The US State Department has solidly affirmed and praised our government’s mainland policies. Signatories of the open letter familiar with the US government’s hopes for better cross-strait relations should understand the reason for this. Can it be that worsening relations and rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait would be more advantageous to US interests?
2. No need for an ECFA referendum
The primary purposes of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) are to maintain the competitive edge of Taiwan’s industries in the mainland market and to strengthen our foreign trade momentum so as to minimize the danger of being marginalized. A MAC-commissioned survey conducted by Berkeley Marketing Research in mid-April revealed that 70 percent of the respondents support the negotiation of an ECFA, indicating most people look at the potential benefits of such an agreement in a positive light.
With no question of sacrificing sovereignty, benefits for Taiwan’s economy include reducing the relocation of factories to other countries and thereby protecting jobs; lowering tariffs on our products and thereby boosting their competitiveness in the mainland market; spurring Taiwan’s globalization; and facilitating the negotiation and signing of economic agreements with other countries.
3. Any ECFA will be sent to the legislature for review
This administration has communicated extensively with the public in the hope that an ECFA can be signed before 2010. In the process of planning, the administration will be scrupulous in communicating with and explaining relevant matters to the legislature and all sectors of society. Whatever economic agreements are signed with mainland China will be sent to the legislature, in accordance with the law, for review and supervision. The same applies to any future cross-strait economic agreements.
It is clearly untrue, therefore, that, as claimed in the letter, cross-strait exchanges lack transparency and genuine dialogue, decisions and agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public, and the legislature seems to have been sidelined.
4. Signing an ECFA will facilitate FTAs
The US government has indicated that without improved cross-strait relations and trade liberalization, the US cannot sign a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Taiwan. In fact, since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came into office, the peaceful, steady development of cross-strait relations has won the affirmation of our major trading partners, such as the US, the EU, Singapore, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Many countries have indicated that the normalization of economic and trade relations across the Taiwan Strait will be conducive to expediting FTA talks with Taiwan.
The administration’s policy has always been to pursue FTAs with our major trading partners, while negotiating economic agreements with mainland China. This strategy is aimed at global deployment of our businesses, not just at expanding our mainland Chinese markets. As relations with mainland China progress, we can look forward to improved prospects for signing FTAs with other nations.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all who are concerned for Taiwan, including the signatories of the open letter. We assure you that this administration will continue to maintain transparency and adequate communication with all sectors of society.
SU JUN-PIN
Minister, Government Information Office
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS