This nation has a long history of legislators either failing in or overstepping their duties in serving as a check on the authorities.
But when three Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — Alex Tsai (蔡正元), Luo Ming-tsai (羅明才) and Alex Fai (費鴻泰) — proposed a resolution at Monday’s legislative Finance Committee meeting requesting that the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) assess whether domestic financial institutions wishing to branch into China endorsed the planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, they went too far.
Without providing details, the trio requested that the FSC take applicant banks’ endorsement of an ECFA into consideration when reviewing their applications for approval to enter the Chinese market.
This not only caused confusion, but also triggered concern about the possibility of business censorship similar to that imposed by Chinese authorities on US Internet giant Google.
FSC officials are, in the first place, lost as to where to begin to act on the legislative resolution, since it is almost impossible to measure or quantify such a political endorsement, let alone whether it is lawful for the financial regulator to single out businesses (and it most certainly is not).
The private banking sector is also appalled, since such a political endorsement has nothing to do with its business scope. It also makes no sense for the government to place the burden of communicating with the public about an ECFA on the financial sector.
Furthermore, almost nobody from the financial sector has opposed a trade pact that would liberalize their China-bound investments.
The legislative “political correctness” proposal, in particular, comes at a sensitive time when the global business community is keeping an eye on the future of Google in China after the search engine said it would no longer yield to pressure from Beijing to censor search results on its platform.
Should the legislative resolution be woven into financial regulations, Taiwan — with Beijing’s backing — would be telling the world that any businesses that are against the government’s ECFA policies would not be welcome and that any China-based Taiwanese businesses that oppose the trade pact would be discriminated against and should stay outside the Chinese market, just as Google was forced to withdraw to Hong Kong.
How different, then, would the Taiwanese government look from its Chinese counterpart? Could a case even be made that the Taiwanese market is more liberal than that in China?
Taiwan will have a hard time justifying itself if these three legislators’ recommendations are followed.
It may be too much to ask KMT legislators not to defend their government’s policies, but for legislators to blindly stand behind any policies proposed by their party without prioritizing voters’ interests is delinquency. It is equally unacceptable for them to support motions that would institutionalize — by signing into law — discriminatory policies.
No legislator, regardless of his or her political affiliation, should support policies that impose limits on people’s liberty to choose.
The government has often emphasized that an ECFA would be purely an economic matter; punishing businesses that, for one reason or another, did not support the policy would be politicization sans pareil.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS