ECFA: Ruling and Opposition Parties Should Return to Reason

ECFA: Ruling and Opposition Parties Should Return to Reason 
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 8, 2010

Taipei and Beijing have signed the cross-strait economic framework agreement (ECFA). Once ECFA has been reviewed by the Legislative Yuan, the DPP should cease its obdurate opposition, and adopt a new and more rational attitude, by helping oversee ECFA.
Ever since ECFA negotiations began, the DPP has been obstinately opposed to it. It opposed it upon completion of negotiations. It opposed it when the early harvest list was announced. It opposed it even though the government negotiated favorable terms for our side. It opposed it even though Beijing made generous concessions. It opposed it even after internationally renowned financial experts affirmed its value. On this point at least, the DPP can claim the dubious distinction of "being consistent from beginning to end." Having mired itself in this "opposition to the bitter end" quagmire however, the DPP now finds it even more harder to fulfill its proper role as the loyal opposition providing legislative oversight.

In retrospect, the Democratic Progressive Party's justifications for opposing ECFA can be divided into the political and the economic. The political justifications it cited include concern for sovereignty. But if one pores over the text of ECFA, one cannot find a single word touching on politics or sovereignty. What can one say except that the DPP has scared itself and its supporters to death, for no reason.

The DPP cited many more economic justifications, but every one of them equally absurd. They failed to withstand careful scrutiny, and even contradicted one other. Early during negotiations, the DPP said ECFA would allow Mainland workers to flood the island, putting Taiwanese out of work. Even though the government repeatedly made clear that Mainland workers would not be permitted to work on Taiwan, the DPP continued to make this claim in their propaganda. Free trade agreements (FTAs) the world over direct themselves at goods and services. Services involve small numbers of high-end white-collar service positions. No FTA has ever opened up a nation's borders to unrestricted immigration. If the DPP is actually wringing its hands over such concerns, then it is ignorant beyond belief. If the DPP knows the truth but is deliberately deceiving the public, then it is unethical beyond belief.

The DPP says it is afraid that more vulnerable industries and workers will be harmed. That was why it opposes ECFA. But the DPP has simultaneously demanded that the government sign FTAs with European nations, the United States, Japan, ASEAN nations, and other major nations. It has even suggested that the government first sign FTAs with the United States and Europe, then sign ECFA with the Mainland. Clearly, the DPP is guilty of a gross contradiction.

All FTAs involve the two parties opening their markets to each other. Most FTAs make over ninety percent of their goods tariff free. Every economy will negatively impact some weaker, less competitive industries. But country A's comparatively weaker industry may be country B's comparatively stronger industry. During the bargaining process, some industries will be winners, and others will be losers. FTAs will eventually force weaker industries to face competitive pressures from abroad. Therefore, if the DPP's justification for opposing ECFA is to protect weaker industries, it ought to oppose FTAs. After all, the industries vulnerable to ECFA are the industries vulnerable to FTAs. If the DPP is urging the government to swiftly sign FTAs with other major nations, then the DPP's rhetoric is utterly incoherent and flatly self-contradictory.

During the Two Yings Debate, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen issued a dire warning. She said that Hong Kong was experiencing a widening gap between rich and poor because of CEPA, and that ECFA would exacerbate the wealth gap on Taiwan. In fact during the past decade, the gap between rich and poor in all nations has continued to increase. The main reason is that with globalization the "winners circle" has gotten smaller. Governments have yet to compensate for changes in the domestic distribution of wealth. Taipei has yet to sign an FTA with any major nation, yet the gap between rich and poor has widened steadily over the past ten years. On the other hand, Japan has signed FTAs with many other nations, yet its domestic gap between rich and poor has not gotten worse. Obviously allegations that ECFA will lead to a widening gap between rich and poor is utterly beside the point. FTAs are merely one facet of globalization. Refusing to become part of the larger circle of globalization leads to greater losses, and makes economic growth even more difficult.

When ECFA was submitted to the Legislative Yuan for review, the DPP demanded a line by line review instead of a package review. Even then its justifications were utterly unconvincing. In 2007 the United States and South Korea signed an FTA. The U.S. Congress objected to the articles pertaining to U.S. beef and automobiles. As of today, the bill has yet to pass. But neither nation's legislators demanded a line by line review. If the FTA was unacceptable, they would simply have rejected it in toto. In fact ECFA is an FTA. If the DPP considers it a poorly drafted FTA, it can simply urge its rejection. Should an FTA be subjected to line by line review by members of the legislature? Should it be custom tailored according to the whims of individual legilslators? Should even the early harvest list be subjected to a vote? In one's dreams maybe, but not the real world. If one is willing only to approve what is to one's benefit, and unwilling to approve anything that is not, who is going to be willing to negotiate with you?

When addressing ECFA, the DPP should not blindly play the role of naysayer. Instead, it should adopt a more active and constructive role. For example, once ECFA comes into force, it will inevitably harm some domestic industries. When the government comes up with a budget providing relief for victimized industries, the DPP should to play a more professional role. It should help determine the appropriate compensation, instead of indulging in demogogic obstructionism. Such antics do a disservice to society and the public, to the vulnerable industries and workers the DPP purports to care so much about, and even to the DPP itself.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.07.08
看待ECFA 在野黨應回歸理性專業
本報訊

在兩岸正式簽署兩岸經濟架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ），同時ＥＣＦＡ也在立法院審議後，民進黨是應該改變過去全力反對的立場，而是以新的態度面對，理性的監督ＥＣＦＡ。

民進黨從洽商ＥＣＦＡ開始，就一路反對；在完成洽商、早收清單公布，台灣有攻有守，大陸也實現了「讓利」，還是反對。甚至，在國際諸多財經大師肯定ＥＣＦＡ後，仍堅持反對態度。這點，倒算是「一路走來，始終如一」。但在陷入這種「誓死反對」的漩渦後，民進黨更難以在野黨的立場，扮演好監督角色。

回頭看，民進黨反對ＥＣＦＡ的理由可分政治與經濟面；政治面是擔心主權問題，但看看ＥＣＦＡ內文，從頭到尾無一字涉及政治與主權，只能說，這是自己嚇自己兼嚇唬人民。

而經濟方面的理由更多，但都荒腔走板，沒有一個禁得起分析，甚至彼此自相矛盾。在洽談初，民進黨說ＥＣＦＡ會開放大陸勞工來台工作，台灣人都沒工作；即使政府再三澄清強調，絕對不會開放大陸勞工來台，民進黨還是拿此項目作宣傳。更何況，全世界的自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ），談的貿易是貨品與服務，而服務則是少數高階白領的服務業，從來就沒有一個ＦＴＡ，是開放讓另一國的勞工無限制的入境工作。民進黨如果真有此擔心，是無知了。如果知道實情卻仍蓄意以此欺騙社會大眾，那就是不道德了。

民進黨也說擔心弱勢產業與勞工受傷，因此要反對ＥＣＦＡ。但我們也同時聽到民進黨要求政府儘快與其它歐、美、日、東協等主要國家簽ＦＴＡ，甚至提出該先與美、歐先簽ＦＴＡ，再來與大陸簽ＥＣＦＡ的看法。但這兩者間存在著本質上嚴重的矛盾。

所有ＦＴＡ都是雙方彼此開放市場給對方，多數是把九成以上的貨品降到零關稅。每個經濟體必然有較弱勢、較不具競爭力的產業。但Ａ國的相對弱勢產業，很可能就是Ｂ國相對強勢產業，談判過程必然有得有失，ＦＴＡ最後必定造成部分弱勢產業必須面對更國外更大競爭壓力。因此，如果民進黨反對ＥＣＦＡ的重要理由是為國內弱勢產業發聲，坦白說，就該反對所有的ＦＴＡ─因為弱勢產業就是那些產業，但民進黨卻又催促政府趕快與其它主要國家簽ＦＴＡ。民進黨的主張，可說前言不對後語，夠矛盾的。

此外，雙英辯論中，民進黨主席蔡英文提出警語，說香港因為ＣＥＰＡ而拉大貧富差距，ＥＣＦＡ也會加劇台灣的貧富差距。但事實上近十多年來，全球各國貧富差距不斷擴大，其主要成因在全球化帶來的「贏者圈」變小，各國政府又未在國內分配上作調整所致。台灣未與任何主要國家簽署ＦＴＡ，這十多年來，貧富差距還是一路拉大；反倒是日本與許多國家簽署ＦＴＡ，但國內貧富差距狀況未惡化。顯然，說ＥＣＦＡ會導致國內貧富差距擴大，是未抓住問題焦點。ＦＴＡ只是全球化中的一個面相，但問題是不加入全球化的大圈圈，損失更大、經濟更難發展。

甚至到立法院審議時，對到底要包裹表決還是逐條表決，民進黨堅持的逐條表決，都毫無說服力。看看美國與南韓在二○○七年簽署ＦＴＡ後，因美國國會對美國牛肉與汽車的條件有意見，延擱至今未通過。可沒有那個國會議員說要逐條表決審議美韓ＦＴＡ；真是內容簽得不好，就完全不讓它通過。ＥＣＦＡ其實就是ＦＴＡ，民進黨認為簽得差，就主張不讓它通過即可。如果ＦＴＡ是靠國會議員逐條表決─或甚至如有些立委要求的，連早收清單都表決，那世界就太美了，如果大家只要通過對自己有利、否決對自己有害的項目，那以後誰還敢跟你談？

在ＥＣＦＡ的議題中，民進黨其實不該只扮演一味反對的角色，而是應選擇更積極而有建設性的角色。例如，ＥＣＦＡ生效後，國內必然有受損的產業，在政府編列損害救濟預算，及如何評估、發放損害救濟金上，民進黨應該能扮演更專業的監督角色。一味陷於民粹的反對，對社會、對民眾，對民進黨「念茲在茲」關切的弱勢產業與勞工，甚至對民進黨本身，都毫無益處。