Do not Use ECFA to Tear Taiwan Apart

Do not Use ECFA to Tear Taiwan Apart
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 3, 2009

The most serious problem on Taiwan is divisiveness. Divisiveness along the lines of national identity, divisiveness along the lines of cross-Strait policy, and divisiveness along the lines of social class and community group affiliation. Divisiveness plagues the island from top to bottom. No wonder former president Chen Shui-bian quoted Abraham Lincoln when he was in office, saying that, "A house divided cannot stand."
A pluralistic society will of course have differences. A democracy cannot help but have political differences. But if difference become radical confrontation and divisiveness, the nation and society cannot stand. For over 20 years, politicians have been dividing the nation and society with their demands for the "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution," and their rejection of the Republic of China. They have divided the nation and society with their distinctions between "Taiwanese" and "Mainlanders," between "love for Taiwan" and "lack of love for Taiwan," between "Blue" and "Green" and "South" and "North." Now they have found a new pretext by which to divide the nation and society - ECFA. For the sake of ECFA, the Democratic Progressive Party has divided Taiwan into "agricultural counties and cities" and "non-agricultural counties and cities," and into "those who favor ECFA" and "those who oppose ECFA."

During the current election, the DPP is using opposition to ECFA as the primary plank in its political platform. While campaigning in Yunlin County, Tsai Ing-wen said that ever since the Ma administration took office one year ago, it has done nothing whatsoever helpful or beneficial to the people. She said signing ECFA will allow tariff-free Mainland Chinese products to flood Taiwan, and that the hardest hit will be farmers.

An opposition party is obligated to criticize the ruling party. But Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is anti-intellectual demagoguery. She has lost all sense of propriety. To claim that "Ma Ying-jeou has done nothing whatsoever helpful of beneficial" is gross hyperbole. Does Tsai Ing-wen really believe that allowing Mainland tourists to fly directly to Taiwan is "bad?" Tsai Ing-wen said signing ECFA would allow tariff-free Mainland Chinese products to flood Taiwan. She failed to mention that tariff-free Taiwan goods would be allowed to flood the Mainland? Why? Besides, signing ECFA will not allow Mainland Chinese agricultural products to flood Taiwan. Quite the contrary. That is not part of ECFA. Instead, farmers on Taiwan must make an effort to gain a foothold in the Mainland Chinese market, making it a major export market for Taiwan's farmers and fishermen. ECFA includes all sorts of defense mechanisms. But Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have pointedly ignored the political and economic benefits ECFA offers. They have attempted to create divisions and incite controntation between "agricultural counties and cities" and "non-agricultural counties and cities." They have reduced the complex issue of ECFA's costs and benefits to a simplistic slogan: "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." If this is not anti-intellectual demagoguery, what is?

Under globalization, regional economic organizations such as ASEAN plus Three are proliferating. Taiwan's farmers aren't the only ones threatened. Our sovereignty and prosperity are under threat. Agriculture is a weak industry to begin with. Governments the world over provide special subsidies and special support for agriculture. This would be the case with or without ECFA. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen have taken ECFA, a policy intended to ensure the Republic of China's political survival, and Taiwan's economic survival, and depicted it as a victimizer of agriculture and farmers. Such anti-intellectual demagoguery divides the nation in exchange for a few votes.

The DPP knows only how to oppose and distort ECFA. It has never offered an alternative. Next month, ASEAN plus One goes into effect. Not so long ago it was "Next year ASEAN plus One will go into effect." If major industries on Taiwan are forced to compete on unequal terms in the Mainland Chinese market due to the tariffs they must pay, does the DPP intend to compensate them out of its own pocket? If these key export industries lose their competitive edge, the agricultural sector will feel the pain. The Republic of China's political future and Taiwan's economic future will face a grave threat. By then, will distinctions between "agricultural counties and cities" and "non-agricultural counties and cities" have any meaning whatsoever?

Politically speaking, the most controversial aspect of the DPP is its habitual resort to anti-intellectual demagoguery. Taiwan today is in dire straits. It would be fair to say that the Democratic Progressive Party is responsible for most of Taiwan's misfortunes. For example, DPP leaders know full well that Taiwan independence is mere self-delusion. Yet they would have their supporters believe that "demanding Taiwan independence" equals "loving Taiwan." DPP leaders know perfectly well that a closed door policy means economic suicide. Yet they have repeatedly forced Taiwan to miss opportunities to establish an Asia-Pacific platform. ECFA has been delayed so long, that ASEAN plus One and ASEAN plus Three are already under way. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party still opposes it out of sheer cussedness. It is unable to suggest an alternative. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen should adopt a macro view of ECFA. Instead they have turned it into a political football with which to sow domestic dissension. What they are doing is nothing less than exploiting a nation's crisis for short term political advantage. They are, as the Chinese expression puts it, "licking blood from a knife."

Our political and economic future faces a grave threat. With or without ECFA, the "three rural issues" are major political and economic problems. Politicians must have the vigilance to extricate the Republic of China from its political crisis, and the vision to extricate Taiwan from its economic crisis. They must not attempt to divide Taiwan along the line of "agricultural counties and cities" and "non-agricultural counties and cities." They must not deceive farmers, inciting them to hate ECFA. The DPP's anti-intellectual demagoguery can only make farmers feel exploited and aggrieved. it cannot safeguard our political and economic future, or protect our agricultural sector.

If the Republic of China's sovereignty and Taiwan's prosperity are undermined, we will end up with nothing. Where will agriculture be then?

不要再用ECFA來撕裂台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.12.03 03:58 am

台灣最嚴重的問題就是撕裂。國家認同撕裂、兩岸政策撕裂、社會及族群也撕裂，一路從頭撕裂到腳。難怪連陳水扁在總統任內都曾引用美國林肯總統的話說：「一幢分裂的房子是站不住的。」

多元社會自然有意見的歧異，民主政治也不免有政見的分歧；但若形成徹底的對立與撕裂，國家社會就會「站不住」。然而，二十餘年來，政客們卻始終在撕裂國家社會：「正名制憲／中華民國」是撕裂，「台灣人／外省人」是撕裂，「愛台灣／不愛台灣」、「藍／綠」、「南部／北部」，在在皆是撕裂。現在，又有了新的撕裂手法，為了ＥＣＦＡ，民進黨又將台灣撕裂成「農業縣市／非農業縣市」及「贊成ＥＣＦＡ／反對ＥＣＦＡ」兩半。

這次選舉中，民進黨將攻擊ＥＣＦＡ做為主要政見。蔡英文在雲林助選時說：馬政府執政一年多來，沒有做過一件對人民有幫助和有利的事……。她說：簽訂ＥＣＦＡ就是讓中國產品零關稅進入台灣，首當其衝的是農民。

作為在野黨，固然是以批評執政黨為職守；但蔡英文的話聽來卻令人覺得是反智愚民，失了分寸。像「馬英九沒做過一件好事」之類的說法，就太誇張；難道蔡英文認為馬政府開放直航及陸客來台也是「壞事」？再者，蔡英文只說簽訂ＥＣＦＡ後大陸商品來台免關稅，卻為何不提台灣商品銷往大陸也免關稅？且ＥＣＦＡ簽訂後並未開放大陸農產品的新項目來台，反而在ＥＣＦＡ之外，今後應努力爭取大陸市場成為台灣農漁產品的重要外銷地。何況，ＥＣＦＡ尚有種種防衛機制。然而，蔡英文及民進黨卻將ＥＣＦＡ的主要政經利益完全隱瞞抹煞，並將之無限上綱至「農業縣市／非農業縣市」的撕裂與對立。把一個利害錯綜複雜的ＥＣＦＡ，簡化成「傾中賣台」四字。這種手法不是反智愚民是什麼？

在全球化及區域經濟組織（如東協加三）勃興的世界潮流中，台灣的整個政經發展已經面臨興衰續絕的威脅。也就是說，不只是台灣的農民受到威脅，而是整個台灣的政經發展一體受到威脅。何況，農業本是弱勢產業，世界各國政府對農業皆有特殊的補助與扶持，有無ＥＣＦＡ皆是如此。但民進黨及蔡英文卻將ＥＣＦＡ這個救治台灣整體政經發展的對策，扭曲醜化成了只是迫害農業及農民的兇手；這當然是反智愚民，不惜以撕裂國家社會來操作選舉。

民進黨只知反對及扭曲ＥＣＦＡ，卻從未提出任何對策。下個月（不久前還說是明年）東協加一即告生效，若干台灣重要產業將因關稅負荷，在大陸市場上面臨立足點不平等的處境；民進黨能補貼這些重要產業的關稅負擔嗎？如果這些重要出口產業失去競爭力，不要說台灣農業將受衝擊，恐怕整個台灣的政經發展皆要出現致命性的危機。到時候，還有什麼「農業縣／非農業縣」的差別可言？

民進黨在政治上最可議的就是這種反智愚民的手法。台灣走到今日左支右絀的窘迫境地，可謂大半皆因民進黨這種手法所造成。例如：明知台獨是自欺欺人，卻要其支持者相信台獨才是愛台灣；明知鎖國將自斃，卻一再錯失台灣成為亞太平台的時機；如今，ＥＣＦＡ已經拖到東協加一、東協加三即將啟動，民進黨竟然還在「為反對而反對」，但提不出任何替代方案。尤其，民進黨及蔡英文將ＥＣＦＡ這個必須有全局觀點的政策，扭曲成撕裂國家社會的政治議題，這更不啻是趁國之危、刀口舔血了。

台灣的政經發展正面臨致命性的衝擊。不論有無ＥＣＦＡ，「三農問題」皆是重大政經課題，但政治人物要有拯救整個台灣政經危機的警覺與襟抱，而不是在此時將台灣撕裂成「農業縣／非農業縣」，甚至誤導農民去仇恨ＥＣＦＡ；民進黨如此反智愚民，只能使農民產生更大的相對剝奪感及對社會的仇怨，卻絕非穩住台灣整體政經發展，進而穩住農業的方法。

如果台灣的主體政經發展出現致命性的危機，覆巢之下，恐怕什麼都沒有了，哪裡還有農業？