President Ma’s Willful Misrepresentation of Facts Regarding Service Trade Agreement Controversy

In an interview with the U.S.-based Forbes magazine, President Ma engaged in willful mischaracterization of the truth with his claims that the negotiation, signing, and review process of the controversial Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) were “transparent,” and that the March student protest movement was caused by the DPP’s obstruction of the legislative agenda. 

1. President Ma says in the interview that before concluding the cross-strait agreement, his administration communicated with 46 different industries and consulted with 264 private sector stakeholders, therefore the process was not a “black box”.  However, as of 2013, Taiwan’s service sector made up 70% of our GDP, encompassing over 1,000 different industries and 6 million employees.  The signing of the cross-strait economic agreements has a potentially grave impact on countless citizens and industries.  President Ma’s assertion is a reckless misrepresentation of the facts, demonstrating his administration’s complete disregard for the interests and future development of our national industries.

2. CSSTA caused massive controversy in our society because the negotiations and the signing process were opaque and non-transparent.  The Ma administration not only did not engage in sufficient communication with the potentially impacted industries ahead of time, but even the impact assessment report that holds the key to the agreement’s success or failure was produced after the backroom agreement had already been signed, and then only under the pressure of public opinion and civil society groups.  The report was hastily and sloppily prepared by a contracted agency.  In the subsequent 20 “public hearings” that President Ma called “open and transparent”, the administration did not budge from its position that not even one word of the agreement could be changed, in spite of the barrage of doubts and skepticism expressed by the representatives of various industries in the hearings.  Given the government’s refusal to submit to public oversight, the resulting backlash is not at all surprising.

3. The party caucuses reached an agreement on June 25, 2013, stipulating that the CSSTA should be reviewed clause-by-clause in the Legislative Yuan (LY).  But before the pact was reviewed, in a session of the Internal Administrative Committee on March 17, the KMT declared that as the 90-day review period had expired, the pact should be considered as reviewed.  The KMT attempted to force through the pact directly to a vote.  It was this kind of deal-breaking, democracy-reversing behavior that fundamentally triggered the students’ LY occupation and the public uproar in March.  In the Forbes interview, Ma’s claim that “this [30 seconds review by KMT legislator Chang Ching-chung] was interpreted by some as a move to pass the agreement.  In fact, it had not been passed and had not even left the Legislative Yuan,” and that the student movement was a “misunderstanding” are willful mischaracterization.

4. The DPP condemns President Ma’s purposeful distortions of the facts to the international media, his refusal to communicate with the people, and his persistent provoking of partisan confrontation and social conflict.

 

 

Read more »

DPP consistent in defending Taiwan's sovereignty, including situation with Japan over National Palace Museum exhibit

Concerning the National Palace Museum exhibit in Japan, in which the Japanese side removed the word “national” in their promotional materials, Chair Tsai Ing-wen at first instance on June 20 issued a declaration expressing that the Ma administration must be consistent in its affirmation of the country’s sovereignty, and at the same time she affirmed the government’s response and measures concerning this international situation.

Chair Tsai had further emphasized that under all kinds of situations in which the country’s sovereignty faces similar treatment, the government must clearly express its standpoint, and it must also employ the same standard when issuing a response regardless of which country Taiwan faced with.

Regrettably, KMT Spokesperson Charles Chen I-hsin ignored or did not make himself aware of Chair Tsai’s remarks immediately after the incident, and on June 21^st accused the DPP of shying away from making comments because it concerned Japan. President Ma Ying-jeou also publicly accused on June 24^th that opposition parties tended to disregard national dignity when it concerned Japan. KMT Spokesperson Chen’s and President Ma’s statements were in contradiction to the DPP long-term standpoint on defending Taiwan’s sovereignty and status regardless of which country was involved, whether China or Japan. The DPP solemnly expresses regret over this kind of divisive statements made by the Ma administration.

Read more »

Cross-Strait interactions must follow principles of sovereignty, equality, democracy

Regarding the anticipated visit to Taiwan by Minister Zhang Zhijun of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council (TAO), who is scheduled to meet for discussions with Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi, DPP's Director of China Affairs Chao Tien-lin asserts the DPP's position, issued on June 24, as follows:

1. We take a positive view of normalized exchanges between the two sides of the Strait, but these interactions must follow the principles of sovereignty, equality, and democracy, and cannot bring harm to Taiwan's interests, nor circumvent the mechanisms of democratic oversight to undertake political negotiations of any kind.  The itinerary and related arrangements for these talks must be public and transparent.

2. The future of Taiwan will be determined by its 23 million people.  This is our longstanding position, as well as the consensus and insistence of the people of Taiwan that the Ma administration cannot evade.  Minister Wang must clearly and accurately reflect the voice of Taiwan's people.

3. As Director Zhang has also expressed the wish to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation in Taiwan, particularly the sentiments at the grassroots level, and to interact with Taiwanese from all walks of life, we hope that on this trip he will make an earnest and sincere effort to listen and to comprehend the true feelings and opinions of the people of Taiwan.

 

On the subject of protests mounted by other parties and civil society groups, Mr. Chao pointed out that all of Taiwan is watching Minister Zhang's visit closely, and many people have strong opinions that they wish to express. Taiwan is a democratic society with diverse voices and freedom of expression, and this is in fact a very normal phenomenon, Mr. Chao said.  He emphasized that the Taiwanese people take these developments in stride, and call on the government and the rest of the country to do the same.  As for whether there are plans for DPP personnel to participate in the protest, Mr. Chao stated that he is not aware of any such plans.  "We will closely observe the diverse voices of Taiwan's society, which are to be expected in an open and democratic society."

 

Read more »

DPP: government's free-zone policy was non-transparent, lacking of comprehensive economic planning

The special article governing the Free Economic Pilot Zones (FEPZ) poses several problems because most of the draft contents are empty, as it was described by Chair Tsai Ing-wen during an expanded policy meeting held in Greater Taichung from June 9 to 10. According to Chair Tsai, the arguments surrounding the FEPZ is not just about whether Taiwan is “liberalizing” or “locking itself up”. She emphasized the need to discuss and review whether the government did the right preparations when it conducted the strategy planning for FEPZ.

 

Nevertheless, the government’s process while planning for the FEPZ was extremely non-transparent. In order to prevent the government from committing policy errors, the DPP chose to stand in defense of deeply-impacted industries, who faced the danger of disintegration without the proper adjustment programs.

Chair Tsai highlighted three major issues the DPP had over the FEPZ policy of this administration: 

1.       The FEPZ policy failed to prove that it had a strategic or competitive edge, but instead, it was seen as an unlimited “Taiwanese sample platter” of free trade zones, agricultural technology parks, export processing zones and science and technology parks. Furthermore, the FEPZ policy didn't resemble the commonly-understood areas of free zone activity, but were designed to be anywhere in a municipality as they gained the approval of authorities. This produced many doubts on the goals of this administration concerning FEPZ and many questions on whether there were boundaries placed for them. Concerns have appeared on the survival of the entire Taiwanese industry, and whether the government made preparations to prevent domestic companies from the danger of falling apart.

2.      The government’s FEPZ policy and concept was not transparent or clear. By eliminating the current administrative controls, there were problems of unclear administrative enforcement, illegal immigration, land acquisition, environmental pollution, all of which were issues that would cause wide public resistance.

3.      The FEPZ policy mapping incorporated controversial industries, for e.g. agricultural and industrial goods originally subject to control. Under the current FEPZ planning, these products, especially agricultural ones, could enter under the pretext of being from the industry allowed for liberalization. The impact created to domestic industries could be greater than the benefits it could bring. For e.g., the liberalization of the medical and higher education industries showed a lack of review on the overall medical and higher education system in Taiwan.

Chair Tsai commented that concerning the FEPZ policy, the DPP must think of the country’s overall economic strategy and propose a broader and more forward-looking proposal. She said, “I believe Taiwan’s response to globalization challenges should be concentrated on efforts to promote and upgrade industrial restructuring, to responsibly shape the right strategy for specific industries and to allocate resources for their development.”

 

 

Read more »

Chair Tsai Ing-wen receives AIT Director Christopher Marut

Director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), Mr. Christopher J. Marut, paid a visit to Chair Tsai Ing-wen on June 11 to the DPP headquarters.

Since the inauguration of Chair Tsai Ing-wen as DPP chair, Mr. Marut at first instance expressed his wishes to personally congratulate Dr. Tsai. During the visit, both sides discussed topics related to Taiwan-US relations, economic development and Taiwan domestic politics. In addition, both sides exchanged opinions on these topics, promising to maintain each other informed of any new developments.

This is the first foreign guest received by Chair Tsai since her inauguration as chair. She was accompanied by Secretary-General Dr. Joseph Wu, who also serves as the DPP’s representative to the U.S.; Legislator Bi-khim Hsiao and Dr. Ketty Chen, acting director of the Department of International Affairs.

Read more »

DPP welcomes Tainan Mayor Lai's comments in Shanghai

In light of DPP Tainan Mayor Lai Ching-te (William Lai) comments made in Shanghai, DPP Spokesperson Mr. Huang Ti-Ying issued a statement in which the party agreed that Lai simply stated public sentiment and that such viewpoints are mainstream in democratic Taiwan.

 

While the DPP advocates substantive engagement with the Chinese to enhance dialogue and communication, such commitments can only benefit with mutual respect and understanding.

"We hope the Chinese can dissolve our differences that arose from past histories. At the same time, the DPP will continue to engage and enthusiastically seek continued bilateral exchanges," Mr. Huang said.

Read more »

Taiwan Must Contribute to Regional Peace and Security

In an interview with Washington Times published June 5, an official delegation from Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs contends that President Ma Ying-jeou faces rising domestic resistance against the expansion of a long-range radar system, deployed on the country’s western coast to guard against the threat of Chinese missiles, and its possible integration into a U.S. missile defense network.

In fact, there has been no such domestic pressure.  As the largest opposition party in Taiwan, the DPP has been fully supportive of the early warning radar project since its inception, and has also consistently advocated greater defense coordination with the United States.  Furthermore, the DPP has called on President Ma to increase the investment of resources in national security, which has been in steady decline over the past 6 years—despite the fact that, as confirmed by the DOD’s annual report on Chinese military capabilities released last week, Taiwan remains the primary target of the PLA’s continued expansion.

As Taiwan seeks to forge a positive relationship with the PRC, it must nevertheless maintain a robust self-defense capability to ensure peace and deter invasion, as well as to assist in the defense of friends and supporters in whatever way possible.  It is therefore disappointing to see diplomatic officials deflecting responsibility abroad for the Ma administration’s weak record on defense with vague assertions about domestic opposition—and even more so when such assertions do not accord with widespread public perceptions in Taiwan.

Recent polling indicates that 60.6% of Taiwan’s electorate disapproves of the Ma administration’s handling of national defense.  The DPP has undertaken a comprehensive policy review process focused on strengthening Taiwan’s security, beginning with a commitment to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP, as President Ma pledged to do when he assumed office in 2008.  If we fail to keep our own promises, we cannot expect other countries to come to our aid.

At a time when Taiwan’s friends in the U.S. Congress and defense community are seeking to integrate Taiwan into the regional security architecture, we must unequivocally signal our willingness to not only shoulder the responsibility for our own self-defense, but also serve as a net contributor to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Asian Pacific region.
 

Read more »