The ramifications of ECFA
The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) appears to be a major defeat for Taiwan. When the Bureau of Foreign Trade entered negotiations about a year ago, it claimed on its Web site that Taiwan would get tariff reductions on petrochemical and machinery products that would add up to an additional US$65 billion in exports at the expense of Japan, South Korea and ASEAN, contributing greatly to GDP and employment.
In fact, Taiwan has gained tariff reductions on shoes, garments and other non-strategic items with an existing trade value of about US$14 billion. Tariff reductions on these items will not revive the affected local industries, will not spur export growth to China and will not bring back Taiwanese shoe and garment makers who have long since moved to China, Vietnam and other low-cost countries.
As far as the trade substance of the ECFA deal is concerned, China has clearly refused to make any significant concessions. The message to Taiwan, and to the US and other countries, is very simple: There is no free lunch in China.
John Pickles
Taipei
David Reid appears to think that Taiwan needs electoral reform — presumably because he doesn’t like the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which is being pushed through without, in his words, “substantial scrutiny” (Letters, July 15, page 8).
It certainly can’t be for the reasons he claims, that the “pan-blue side have failed to live up to the standards expected in a democracy.” On the contrary, Taiwan is a perfect example of what routinely happens when a democratically elected majority party from the same political party as the head of government or state collude to pass legislation in what they deem to be in the national interest.
Such behavior is more or less a given in many parliamentary democracies, including the one he holds up as an example worthy of emulation, Australia. If there were any uncertainty — or scruples — on the part of pan-blue legislators, they need only glance at the opinion polls, which usually show that a majority of the public actually supports the ECFA.
The spirit of his letter is correct, though. There are problems with Taiwanese democracy, but the choice of electoral system does not seem to me to be of particular importance. There are also very serious issues surrounding the ECFA, not least its status as a “quasi-treaty,” unsigned by any national government. However, this makes complaining about the electoral mechanism all the more odd, given the sheer range of potential — and legitimate — grievances. It is almost redundant to add that the issue of ECFA will not be addressed by making it easier to hold referendums. Notoriously divisive exercises in populist policymaking rarely lead to considered debate and reflection, which is exactly what Taiwan still needs, on what is now a done deal.
Paul Deacon
Kaohsiung
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was on Monday last week invited to give a talk to students of Soochow University, but her responses to questions raised by students and lecturers became a controversial incident and sparked public discussion over the following days. The student association of the university’s Department of Political Science, which hosted the event, on Saturday issued a statement urging people to stop “doxxing,” harassing and attacking the students who raised questions at the event, and called for rational discussion of the talk. Criticism should be directed at viewpoints, opinions or policies, not students, they said, adding
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesman Justin Wu (吳崢) on Monday rebuked seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers for stalling a special defense budget and visiting China. The legislators — including Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), Yeh Yuan-chih (葉元之) and Lin Szu-ming (林思銘) — attended an event in Xiamen, China, over the weekend hosted by the Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association, where they met officials from Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO). “Weng’s decision to stall the special defense budget defies majority public opinion,” Wu said, accusing KMT legislators of acting as proxies for Beijing. KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲), acting head of the party’s Culture and Communications
RSS