The Government Should Provide a Forum to Debate ECFA

The Government Should Provide a Forum to Debate ECFA
China Times News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2009

Last Saturday the ruling KMT lost the County and Municipal Elections. Naturally voices within the KMT have demanded a post mortem. The media has collectively pointed the finger at US beef imports and ECFA for arousing intense opposition in central and southern Taiwan. These were the Ma administration policies critics found the most objectionable. Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-hsiang said he was willing to debate ECFA with the opposition DPP. Even Premier Wu said he was willing to participate. But the DPP announced it was unwilling to participate, frustrating the ruling KMT's efforts to resolve the issue or find any leverage. DPP's reluctance to debate the issue may reflect self-doubt and evasiveness. But the ruling party cannot avoid responsibility for facilitating communication and dialogue.

We realize of course that people have different views about government policy. But Ma administration officials did a poor job of communicating the benefits of ECFA to the public. The issues remained unclear. That is why once the DPP accused the KMT of "being in favor of selling out Taiwan," the KMT found it difficult to counter the charge in southern Taiwan. But suppose the KMT had made clear what ECFA was all about. Suppose an eloquent economic minister had debated the issue. Suppose the premier had joined the battle. Considerable controversy would have remained. ECFA involves dozens of industries. If one fails to break the issues into separate categories, but instead debates them in broad terms, one would still have trouble escaping charges of "toadying up to Beijing and caving in to foreign pressure." In the end, it would merely have intensified the confrontation, and made it more difficult to clarify the issue.

As a United Daily News editorial explained earlier, at this stage ECFA is merely a broad framework, a table of contents. At most it includes a brief summary of the contents. Frankly speaking, the framework is so vague there is really nothing to oppose. The public may have concerns about certain industries. Therefore all discussions must include industry consultation. All sorts of issues have all been put on the table, including our current predicament, the benefits of signing, the potential impact of signing, mutual interests, complementary niches, and job retraining. All require broad-based public participation. The Ministry of Economic Affairs can hardly settle the matter by itself. The ruling party considers ECFA beneficial to Taiwan, but finds itself unable to explain clearly to the public how it will benefit. Why? Because the ruling administration has underestimated the power of public sentiment within civil society.

Conceptually speaking, the government can play an active role as the final arbiter of policy. Alternatively it can provide a public forum and play a passive role as the neutral mediator of a policy debate. The ruling administration may have arrived at certain conclusions about the importance of signing ECFA in a timely manner. But ECFA is a far-reaching, many-faceted economic issue that affects the livelihoods and prospects of tens of thousands of people, including both the manufacturing and service sectors. How can can a single, solitary economic minister settle the issue all by himself?

ECFA must be discussed. It must be debated. In fact, it must be divided into a number of different industry sectors and properly explored. Industry associations for various industries must develop talking points, explaining the benefits of signing ECFA. If a particular industry association is unable to convince a majority of the public about the benefits of ECFA, then perhaps that particular industry sector should not be opened up. Perhaps conditions should be added. If a particular industry considers failure to sign ECFA tantamount to a death sentence, then it can make its appeal to the public, instead of hiding behind the government and getting a free ride.

Take the financial industry for example. The two sides have signed an MOU authorizing banks on Taiwan to conduct business on the Mainland using Renminbi. The biggest beneficiary will of course be the banking industry. That being the case, naturally they, and not the government, should be the ones to step forward to convince opponents. If the public has doubts about the transparency of a branch bank on Mainland China, companies on Taiwan can address their concerns in a public forum and offer the appropriate assurances. If the chief beneficiaries, the bankers, are unable to address these public concerns, then opponents will have won a major victory. In which case, the government should perhaps go with the flow and hold off on its implementation.

As we see it, government officials should provide a forum to debate ECFA. The administration may have the final say, but at least during the policy formulation stage, the debate can be about the economic pros and cons of ECFA, instead of becoming a political struggle between the ruling and opposition parties. If the government is willing to provide a forum for various industry sectors to debate the pros and cons, then economic issues can remain economic issues, instead of being reduced to ideological confronations between diametrically opposed political parties.

ECFA is an economic issue that has a bearing on many industries. To invoke the DPP's own slogan, "No matter how barbaric the DPP might be... " It can hardly make enemies of all these industry sectors. The ruling administration should think things through. Perhaps then it will invite these industry sectors to explain the pros and cons of ECFA to the public. If they fail to explain ECFA clearly, but instead leave it a confused mess, then the Ma administration will find it difficult to escape the DPP's political attacks.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.12.11
社論－ECFA辯論 政府提供平台即可
本報訊

在上周六縣市長選舉執政黨挫敗之後，國民黨內當然也掀起了檢討之聲。綜合媒體報導，有指出是美牛與ＥＣＦＡ在中南部激起了極大的反對聲浪，也是外界對馬政府最不滿意之處。對此，經濟部長施顏祥隨後表示，願意就ＥＣＦＡ與在野黨辯論，甚至連吳揆都表態可親上火線。但民進黨隨後卻表示不想辯論，也讓執政黨修補善後的努力如擊敗絮，完全使不上力。民進黨不願辯論也許是心虛閃躲，但執政黨無論如何迴避不了溝通對話的責任。

基本上，我們當然尊重人民對於政府政策有不同意見，也認為馬政府官員並未對ＥＣＦＡ議題做好溝通。正由於事情沒有說清楚，所以一個「親中賣台」的大帽子扣下來，國民黨在南台灣就難以招架。但是即便要把ＥＣＦＡ講清楚，是否得由口才欠佳的經濟部長出面辯論，又是否得閣揆親上火線，則仍有相當的討論空間。此外，ＥＣＦＡ內容涉及數十個產業，如果不分子題而通盤涵蓋的辯論，八成也難以逃脫親中媚外與否的二分切割，最後只會激化對立，卻難以釐清問題。

誠如本報社論先前所分析，ＥＣＦＡ在目前這個階段只是一本書的框架目錄，頂多加上簡短的內容摘要；這麼空泛的框架坦白說根本也無從反對起。民眾或有的疑慮其實隨產業別不同而有異，故所有的討論必須要進入產業協商內涵，將目前的困境、簽署的好處、可能的衝擊、互惠的利益、利基的互補、轉業的輔導等問題一一攤在陽光下。這些都需要廣泛的社會參與對話，絕不是經濟部國貿局所能單獨成事。執政黨目前之所以自我評估簽ＥＣＦＡ對台灣有利、卻無法向外清楚說明何處有利，似乎也反映了主政者忽略民間力量與民間參與的粗疏。

就概念而言，政府既可以積極扮演決定一切政策的主導角色，也可以消極扮演提供思辯平台的中性媒介。即使主政者對於簽ＥＣＦＡ的重要性與時效性已有相當的看法，但是ＥＣＦＡ畢竟是一個影響數十個產業、牽動數萬人民生計前景的經濟議題，觸角龐雜、面向繁多，既有製造業、又有服務業，哪裡可能由經濟部長一個人包山包海去辯論？

我們認為，ＥＣＦＡ不但該談、該辯論，而且要切成若干個產業區塊好好的思辯探討。就每一個產業內容，如果簽ＥＣＦＡ真能使該產業獲利，則該產業公會就該研擬說帖、挺身為簽署ＥＣＦＡ而辯護。假若產業公會的正面觀點無法說服大多數人民，那麼也許那一個區塊就不該開放、或是簽署條件要加以設定。假若某個產業認為不簽ＥＣＦＡ就是死路一條，那麼就好好參與社會對話，而非躲在政府背後，撿現成的便宜。

以當前討論最多的金融業為例：兩岸簽署ＭＯＵ、要求ＥＣＦＡ中容許台灣的銀行赴對岸承做人民幣業務，這些事獲利最大的當然是銀行業者。既然如此，自然該由他們站出來說服反對者，而不是將政府推到第一線。若有人對中國大陸分行的金融監理透明度有疑慮，台灣業者也可以在對話平台中提出答辯與因應的承諾。如果受惠的銀行業者拚了命也難以釋社會疑慮，辯論的結果竟是反方大勝，那麼政府當然也許就該從善如流、暫緩實施。

我們認為，就ＥＣＦＡ議題而言，政府官員應該扮演的角色是平台提供者。雖然行政當局最後還是要做決策，但至少在政策形成的過程中，或有的意見對立不該是執政黨與在野黨之間的政治抗爭，而是正、反雙方民間經濟意見的交流。唯有政府敞開心胸，提供多個產業討論平台，將正反意見在平台中彙整對話，經濟議題才能回歸經濟，不再簡化為政黨間意識形態的針鋒相對。

總之，ＥＣＦＡ是個關乎多個產業的經濟議題。民進黨「再怎麼野蠻」，也不能與各行各業的產業利益為敵。想通了這一點，也許行政當局該請各行各業說清楚講明白，究竟簽ＥＣＦＡ對他們的利弊得失是什麼。如果不去細部討論，始終將ＥＣＦＡ視為一糰麵糊，那麼馬政府就很難在民進黨的政治攻擊中脫身了。