The pan-green camp is trying hard to block the cross-strait service trade agreement, both in the legislature and through mass campaigns.
Many experts are talking about how this agreement will hurt Taiwan, although the general public is too busy making a living to have the time and energy required to gain an understanding of what is going on in the world of politics.
This is also why most of the active opposition to the agreement comes from the pan-green camp and those opposed to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
There is no need to try to understand details of the agreement, as simple reasoning is enough to make the public understand the damage it could inflict on the nation.
Taiwan’s service industry consists mainly of small businesses that are already under pressure from big business.
If big Chinese corporations are allowed to enter Taiwan, small business operators will come under even more pressure. However, the Ma administration does not concern itself with these small enterprises.
Big corporations are the only ones that stand to gain from the service trade agreement, as they have the resources to expand into the Chinese market.
However, the Chinese market is huge, and Taiwanese businesses will not have much of an impact on it.
This is very different from the small Taiwanese market, which will not be able to withstand the onslaught of Chinese firms.
It is clear that the companies that will benefit from the trade agreement are the ones already operating on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, whereas the small companies in the domestic service industry will be stuck with the short end of the stick.
The question that should be asked is: Why does the Ma administration want to sacrifice the nation’s many small business operators for the benefit of a few big corporations?
Most people think the resources supporting the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) interests come from its party assets, but the benefits these assets bring to the party are small in comparison to the resources it gets from business owners.
However, these business owners do not contribute resources to the party without getting anything in return, so it is a mutual exchange in which the government uses its power to pay back business owners.
It is like the government is taking money in exchange for protecting those businesses.
Everyone gets upset when organized crime extorts protection money, but the biggest offender in this respect are not organized crime ventures, it is the government.
The KMT is not the only party that has aligned with business owners.
The Liberal Democratic Party in Japan has done the same thing, but since Japan has strict regulations controlling political contributions, collusion between government and big business is not too outrageous.
The KMT is different, because it has made protection for money a system and has ways of laundering the illicit funds.
The money from business owners goes to the party coffers, and the party then passes it on to individual politicians.
Therefore, there is a quid pro quo relationship between political parties and big business that turns such payments into a so-called “political contribution” instead of bribes.
This relationship allows the party to take protection money and launder it via the party coffers.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and a member of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS