The DPP's Plight, the Fruit of DPP Obstinacy

The DPP's Plight, the Fruit of DPP Obstinacy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2008

Over the past two or three weeks, political rallies sponsored by the Hsieh campaign have invoked the term "adversity." Two weeks ago the theme was "Marching against a Headwind [adverse wind]." Last week the theme was "Triumphing in the Face of Adversity." That the DPP has been shouting these slogans on its own initiative means the Hsieh/Su camp has indeed found itself mired in adversity. Slogans such as "Triumphing in the Face of Adversity" may indeed raise supporters' morale. But the question the DPP should be asking itself is: Why, after eight years in power, has the DPP found itself in such adverse circumstances? Are the Hsieh/Su campaign's policy prescriptions any better than the policies of the past eight years? Will the public on Taiwan be winners or losers if the DPP "triumphs in the face of adversity?"

Why have the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's election prospects taken such a downturn? In its search for the underlying cause, the media has arrived at two conclusions: One. An endless string of corruption scandals involving high officials of ruling regime have left an extremely negative impression on the public. Two. The cross-straits embargo has driven Taiwan companies from the island and left the island's economy in a deep depression. Take this newspaper's recent reports on Asian economies. Taiwan ranked next to last in average real wage growth rates last year. According to the overall economic data, Taiwan has experienced a serious shortage of domestic demand in recent years. GDP growth has been driven solely by exports. If we exclude outsourcing contracts to the Chinese mainland, the sole beneficiaries of these exports are managers of high-tech and high-end component manufacturing firms. The ruling DPP refuses to have business contacts with mainland China. The movement of passengers and freight is obstructed. Capital investment on the mainland is forbidden. The high growth, low wage market opportunities that the Chinese mainland offers have all been snatched up by others. The Green Camp may have global plans for Taiwan, but its rejection of the Chinese mainland is its biggest blind spot. This blind spot is not an opposition party invention. The American Chamber of Commerce and the European Chamber of Commerce have repeatedly made the same point to the Chen regime, to absolutely no effect.

The DPP hopes for a "Reversal of Fortune." Logically speaking it ought to reverse its strategy of ignoring the mainland Chinese market. After all, this strategy landed the island in its current economic depression and the DPP in it current political dilemma. Alas, all evidence suggests it hasn't changed its thinking one iota. Over the past two weeks, the Hsieh/Su campaign has relentlessly denounced the Ma/Siew campaign's "Cross-Strait Common Market." The Hsieh/Su campaign consistently paints any sort of cross-strait common market as the immediate exchange of labour, as immediate acceptance of professional certification, as the crowding out of local labor, as the equivalent of local unemployment. Such simplistic distortions totally ignore the reality of the European Common Market. They are part of the DPP's illiberal, anti-market, mentality. They are the reason no one can detect the slightest change in the DPP's position.

Readers who understand the EU know that the EU's employment laws and regulations are quite lenient. The free movement of labor between EU member states is subject to the consent of the respective national legislatures. In 2004 older EU member states allowed the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Slovakia, Estonia, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, to join the European Union. They arranged a seven year buffer period for the opening of labour. If at the end of that seven year period, member nations still feared disruptions to their home markets, they retained the right to postpone any opening. The United Kingdom, Ireland, and Sweden are EU member nations which imposed no conditions whatsoever upon the free movement of labour. As of 2006 these three nations' migrant worker populations were 0.4%, 4%, 1. 9%, and 1%. As we can see, it is something of a stretch to claim that open labour markets amount to local labour unemployment. Besides, even if Taiwan and the mainland were to move toward a Common Market they would still have to undergo two protracted stages: a customs union and a Free Trade Area. These would take 20 years at least. The Hsieh camp has taken a cross-straits labor crisis that might arise only 20 years later, and painted it as the greatest unemployment crisis ever to confront Taiwan. This is a gross distortion and represents the DPP's same, obdurate "Just Say No" policy of the past eight years.

Secondly, just because European universities recognize each others' academic credentials does not mean these nations are going to forsake domestic employment regulations. Czech medical school graduates might pass physician's licensing examinations in Germany, but in the end they may not go to Germany and become physicians. They must wait until Germany's employment policies are liberalized. Conversely, if in order to ensure full domestic employment, one refuses to recognize high quality academic credentials, should Singapore refuse to recognize Beijing University academic credentials? Should Hong Kong refuse to recognize the academic credentials of American universities? The Hsieh/Su camp's attitude toward mainland academic credentials is so reactionary and distorted, one really has to wonder what if anything has changed in the DPP's cross-strait policy?

Cross-strait relations is an important and sensitive subject. Politicians must not approach cross-strait relations with ideological biases or wishful thinking. Cross-strait relations and exchanges must not be defined simplistically, demonized, or turned into objects of terror. If we ignore the practical experience of Europe, if we tell people that opening cross-strait exchanges will leave barbers and other professionals unemployed, then we are treating voters like fools. To demonize business exchanges in this manner is not merely "opposition to a One-China market." It is opposition to market freedom per se.

DPP leaders often say it is acceptable for the DPP to lose, but "Taiwan must not lose." We agree one hundred and ten percent. We hope that four years from today, no matter which party is in office, it will no longer find itself in mired in similar adversity. Eight years of adversity is enough.

中時電子報 中國時報 　
2008.03.18
何以會「逆」？有沒有「轉」？
中時社論

　最近兩三周，謝長廷競選總部所主導的造勢活動，都與「逆」字有關，兩周之前是逆風行腳，上周末則是逆轉勝。就字義而言，既然對自己的群眾喊出逆轉勝的口號，就表示長昌陣營確實是處於逆境。逆轉勝的口號確實有振奮支持者人心的作用，但是我們想要仔細探索一下：為什麼民進黨執政八年卻把自己框在一個「逆境」？目前的長昌政策主張與過去八年究竟有沒有「轉」變？台灣又究竟有沒有可能獲「勝」？

　民進黨執政八年為什麼會把自己的選情弄到如此一個逆境呢？追根究柢，媒體大致彙整為兩個因素：一是執政高官貪腐醜聞不斷，給人民極壞的印象，二是兩岸阻絕、台商出走、台灣經濟不振。以本報日前的報導為例，去年亞洲各國平均實質薪資成長率，台灣排名倒數第二。再以整體經濟數據來看，台灣最近數年國內需求嚴重不足，ＧＤＰ成長僅以對外出口單一引擎維持。這些出口訂單扣掉外包給中國大陸的代工，往往只剩下高科技元件製造業者與高階經理人能夠獲利。由於政策上不願意與中國大陸商業接觸、人貨航運阻隔、金融登陸布局裹足不前，於是將中國大陸這一塊高成長、低工資、大市場的商機拱手讓給他人。簡單的說，綠營對中國大陸市場的切割排拒，是台灣全球布局的最大盲點。這個盲點並不只是在野黨的觀點；美僑商會與歐僑商會亦多次指陳類似的看法。

　民進黨想逆轉勝，照理說就要對造成當前經濟逆境、忽略中國市場的策略有所「轉」變才是；但遺憾的是，種種證據顯示他們並沒有什麼轉變。過去兩周，長昌總部不斷地在批評馬蕭的兩岸共同市場。長昌總部將共同市場描繪為兩岸勞工的立即流通、又把學歷承認等同於開放勞工、等同於就業排擠、等同於台灣人的失業。這樣的扭曲簡化，完全不理會歐洲共同市場的實際情況，基本上就是一個反市場、反開放的心態，也令人看不出來民進黨的切割扭曲觀點有什麼轉變。

　對歐盟稍有了解的讀者都知道，歐盟的就業法規規範非常寬鬆。一般而言，歐盟成員國之間的勞工移動，都得經由各國國內立法的同意。在二○○四年歐盟舊成員國接受捷克、波蘭、拉脫維亞、斯洛伐克、愛沙尼亞、斯洛維尼亞、匈牙利、立陶宛這八國加入歐盟時，就訂下長達七年的勞工開放緩衝期，准許各國自行決定開放時程。七年之後，如果成員國有市場干擾的疑慮，也仍然有再緩開放的權力。歐盟中英國、愛爾蘭、瑞典是對勞工移動全不設禁的三國，但至二○○六年中這三國境內的移民勞工僅分別占○．四％、一．九％、一％，可見「開放勞工」與「本國工人失業」之間，真的有天壤之別。更何況，台灣就算與對岸往共同市場邁進，還要經過關稅同盟、自由貿易區這兩個冗長的階段，少說也是廿年光景。謝陣營把廿幾年後才可能出現的兩岸勞工移動，描述成台灣各行各業的大失業危機，這不但是扭曲，也與過去八年來民進黨的盲目拒中政策並無「轉」變。

　其次，歐洲各大學之間承認學歷，但並不表示各國會放棄所有就業的國內規範。捷克的醫科畢業生即使在德國通過醫師證照考試，最終能不能到德國做醫師，還是要視德國的就業開放政策而定。反過來說，如果以保護就業的理由不承認高水準大學的學歷，那麼新加坡是否也該不承認北大學歷？香港是否也該不承認美國學歷？長昌陣營對於對岸學歷認證的態度竟是如此的保守與扭曲，也讓人難以理解民進黨的兩岸政策究竟「轉」變了什麼？

　不諱言，兩岸關係是重要而敏感的議題。我們不認為政治人物可以依一己之意識形態，對兩岸關係有太多一廂情願的憧憬，但我們更不認同將兩岸市場或交易簡化、醜化、恐懼化的選戰策略。如果不理會歐洲的實際經驗，卻告訴人民：兩岸往來就會使理髮師等數十種專業人員都失業，那真的是幾近愚民式的選舉口號。把商業往來描述成這等妖魔，這恐怕不是「反一中市場」，根本就是「反市場」。

　民進黨領導人常說，選舉輸沒關係，但「台灣不能輸」；我們十二萬分的同意。希望四年後的今天，屆時的執政黨不再處於逆境、不再需要逆轉。八年的台灣逆境，夠了！