It now seems the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are at an impasse on the cross-strait service trade agreement. Yet the issue is simply too important, Taiwanese need to know what the implications of the agreement are, and some way must be found to break the deadlock between the two parties.
A debate between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) is the most effective way forward. However, each wants something different from it.
Ma wants to get away from the quagmire of domestic politics and to return to the cross-strait arena, his comfort zone. Su hopes to dispel doubts over his own leadership and regain the authority befitting the leader of the opposition party.
Each man is convinced that he has the upper hand.
Ma believes he has more authority over the issue; Su believes he has better oratorical skills. Both are confident of victory, and both welcome the debate.
Taiwanese are not concerned with whether Ma and Su accomplish what they want. They are concerned with whether Ma and Su can provide answers on aspects of the trade pact they have yet to address.
The kerfuffle on the agreement has been going on for two months, meaning the public is familiar with its key issues and with the parties’ stances. If the debate merely consists of both sides sticking to their party lines, avoiding the serious issues and not reflecting on the points they are most often questioned on, the significance of this crucial debate will be undermined.
Ma and Su each have specific answers they need to provide.
Ma first needs to account for why the decisionmaking process entailed closed-door meetings, and explain how the negotiations can be more effectively monitored.
Second, he needs to explain how the government will assist those industries affected by the agreement and how it plans to deal with challenges posed by Chinese businesses and Beijing.
Third, after the agreement is inked, what will be done to sign free-trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries?
Fourth, given that the agreement will further cross-strait trade, how will the government avoid Taiwan’s economy being locked onto the Chinese economy?
Su, for his part, needs to account for how Taiwan will deal with the challenge posed by South Korea, given that it has already signed FTAs with 45 countries.
Second, given that South Korea and China could sign an FTA next year, much earlier than was originally expected, how should Taiwan respond?
Third, Su needs to clarify how the DPP is to respond now that many countries have expressed reluctance to sign agreements with Taiwan until China has.
Fourth, Su is opposed to the agreement now, but should he be elected, will he accept it in government?
The only way the debate can convince people is if all parties move beyond party politics. However, if all Ma and Su do is regurgitate party lines and repeat the attacks we have seen pro-blue and pro-green media launch, the debate will be useless and will only worsen the current deadlock between the parties.
Ma and Su must both realize that the only way to benefit the public’s perception of them and to solve the crisis facing the nation is to elevate the level of the debate. After all, after the debate itself there will be a further 16 public hearings in the Legislative Yuan. If the leaders themselves are incapable of stepping up to the occasion, how can we expect the public hearings led by KMT and DPP legislators to contain any real, sincere discourse?
Julian Kuo is a former DPP legislator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed. Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips
RSS