Delicious Milkfish: Enjoyed on Both Sides of the Strait

Delicious Milkfish: Enjoyed on Both Sides of the Strait
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 1, 2011

Summary: Cross-Strait exchanges must not remain mired in politics. They must be seen in a more pragmatic, economic light. There are many different ways to prepare milkfish. If we dig deeper, we can reach a better understanding. We can get past short term advantage and accusations of "reunification strategy." So many areas of cross-Strait exchanges remain taboo. Milkfish, groupers, pomelos, commercial advertising, financial cooperation, performing artists. In this particular case, a few milkfish exports have led to questions about the fishermen's ideology. Isn't this rather absurd?

Full Text Below:

Milkfish is cheap, nutritious, and delicious proletarian cuisine. It can be fried, "looed," or made into soup, porridge, or fish balls. Mainland buyers have put in order after order for milkfish from Xuejia, Tainan. Nevertheless a recent poll showed no change in the "Blue 30%, Green 70%" voter demographic. This suggests that Beijing's "silver bullet offensive" has been ineffective. But the real question is how Mainland consumers came to like milkfish in the first place. Who if anyone showed Mainland consumers how prepare milkfish?

Milkfish is being sold to the Mainland. This leads us to the fishermen, and their political ideology. The fishermen are indeed problematic. They do indeed exhibit "special Taiwanese characteristics." Their "nativist" attitude is typical for Taiwan. Referring to the problem in such terms however, is also problematic. When one conducts business, does one demand to know how the buyer feels, or how one can increase sales? Isn't demanding that the seller alter his political ideology in response sales just a little bit strange? People on Taiwan habitually reduce cross-Strait relations to politics. This of course, is the result of the two sides' special relationship. But matters have been over-politicized, to the point where they interfere with pragmatic concerns and limit future possibilities. This is a blind spot. We must be aware of it. If milkfish was being exported to Japan, would we make the same demands upon the fishermen?

Taiwan milkfish fishermen have contracts with Mainland buyers. These contracts are naturally going to have political overtones. But they remain matters of commerce. They must remain economic in nature. If the price is unreasonable, if payment is not timely, if delivery is tardy, if quality control is lax, if consumer acceptance is low, then the commercial relationship cannot be sustained. From an economic perspective, the logic is clear. The pros and cons can readily be calculated. Business is business. But suppose we blindly denounce milkfish sales as part of Beijing's "reunification strategy?" Suppose we blindly denounce any loss in milkfish sales as "milkfish sales losing their value in reunification strategy," or as Beijing "exacting punishment?" Aren't we saying that making a sale amounts to victimization? Aren't we saying that conducting commerce amounts to putting our heads on the chopping block?

The issue is not limited to milkfish. The ECFA early harvest list includes groupers from Pingtung, pomelo from Matou, and bananas from Kaohsiung. They have all been exported to the Mainland this year. The quantities are large. From Taiwan's perspective, this stabilizes prices for locally grown products. It protects farmers' income. It enables them to avoid selling at a loss or allowing their products to rot. From the Mainland's perspective, the Mainland public is afforded an opportunity to enjoy fruits and fish from Taiwan. This enables the Mainland public to feel closer to Taiwan. This enables farmers, fishermen, and officials from both sides to meet each other, understand each other, learn what the other expects, and create a win/win relationship. From a cultural perspective, the impact of such exchanges on society far outweighs any political considerations.

Many cross-Strait transactions cannot be carried out due to political considerations. Endless second-guessing makes progress impossible. Mainland businesses want to run commercial advertisements on Taiwan. But the MAC remains mired in the martial law era. Superficially, it is worried that Beijing will produce partisan political "product placement" ads. But deeper down, it is more worried about the opposition DPP accusing the government of "selling out Taiwan." Hundreds of millions of dollars of milkfish sales a year have not been able to win the hearts and minds of Xuejia fishermen. How can the national allegiance of the Taiwan public possibly be subverted by a few commercial ads? If advertising on both sides can increase commercial opportunities, what does the MAC have to fear from Mainland advertising?

Cross-strait negotiations often involve "concessions." It is time to rethink this as well. During commercial negotiations, securing the most favorable terms is a good thing. But talk of "concessions" is often equated with surrender in the face of "reunification strategy." Initially, one may feel one has gotten a sweet deal. Eventually however, one may find oneself mired in passivity. For example, rumors have emerged that limits will be imposed on performing artists from Taiwan. The reason is that our side imposes too many limitations on performing artists from the Mainland. Also, the two sides must accelerate financial cooperation to bolster Taiwan-funded enterprises and cross-Strait trade. This is a matter of great urgency. But the government is afraid to allow Mainland banks to operate on Taiwan. This has delayed attempts by financial institutions from Taiwan to establish a foothold on the Mainland. Insufficient boldness limits one to eking out petty gains.

Cross-Strait exchanges must not remain mired in politics. They must be seen in a more pragmatic, economic light. This is true even for culture. The two sides' entertainment realms and academic realms are cross-fertilizing each other. There are many different ways to prepare milkfish. If we dig deeper, we can reach a better understanding. We can get past short term advantage and accusations of "reunification strategy." So many areas of cross-Strait exchanges remain taboo. Milkfish, groupers, pomelos, commercial advertising, financial cooperation, performing artists. In this particular case, a few milkfish exports have led to questions about the fishermen's ideology. Isn't this rather absurd?

兩岸餐桌上五味並陳的虱目魚
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.11.01

從任何角度看，虱目魚都是一種便宜、營養、好吃的台灣平民食物。不論是煎、是滷，煮湯、煮粥，或製成魚丸，都風味鮮美。最近台南學甲和大陸的虱目魚契作訂單陸續出貨，有人在當地作了一個民調，得到學甲「藍三綠七」的格局仍未改變的結論；言下之意，北京的「銀彈攻勢」無效。但奇怪的是，沒有人問如何使大陸市場喜歡虱目魚？如何教大陸民眾懂得吃虱目魚？

由虱目魚契作銷陸聯想到漁民的政治立場，誠然是一個有「台灣特色」的問題，也是台灣的慣性思考模式。這樣的提法，其實也反映了它自身的問題：對一樁貿易，大家不關心買方的市場反應和發展條件，反一味去追問賣方的政治態度變化，豈不奇怪？台灣慣常把兩岸事務向政治目的歸結，這當然是彼此特殊關係使然。但過度政治化，可能妨礙我們對事情的務實評估和未來想像；這樣的盲點，人們不能沒有警覺。若是出口虱目魚到日本，我們會問漁民這樣的問題嗎？

大陸和台灣漁民簽訂虱目魚契作合約，當然不可能沒有「政治味」。但無論如何，交易合約本質上仍是一項商業行為，不能完全失去經濟著眼。試想：如果價格不合理，或付款不乾脆，或者交貨拖拖拉拉，或者品質把關不嚴格，乃至消費者接受度不高，雙方的合作都將難以為繼。亦即，從經濟的角度看，商業邏輯才容易清晰，利弊得失才可以計算。如果一味把虱目魚契作說成對岸「統戰」，最後若失去訂單又說成是「失去統戰價值」或「懲罰」，那豈不形同把命脈全交在別人手裡？

不只虱目魚，在ＥＣＦＡ的早收清單中，包括屏東的石斑、麻豆的文旦、高雄的香蕉，今年都已陸續銷往大陸，數量也相當大。對台灣而言，這不僅穩定了本地盛產期的價格，保障了農民的收入，也使「含淚拋售」、「放著爛」的景象不再重演。對大陸而言，其民眾可以就近品嘗台灣風味的水果、魚產，從而擴大對台灣的親近感；雙方官員和業者並透過實際接觸，增進對彼此的了解，知道如何互通有無、創造雙贏。這些文化面、社會面的經驗交換，絕對遠比高層的政治算計更重要。

事實上，兩岸很多事務無法開展，就是由於太過局限在政治考量上打轉；思前想後的結果，就一步也踏不出去。以大陸企業在台刊登廣告的問題為例，陸委會的思維幾乎還停留在「戒嚴」時代，表面上擔心北京夾帶黨政置入性行銷，骨子裡更擔心反對黨指控政府賣台。試想，一年幾億的虱目魚採購，都動搖不了學甲漁民的心；台灣民眾的國家認同，會輕易被幾句廣告文宣所顛覆嗎？在這個年代，互登廣告若有助活絡兩岸商機，陸委會又為何獨怕大陸廣告？

進一步看，兩岸協商中常出現的「讓利」思維，也到了需要修正的時候了。在協商中能爭取到最有利於我的條件固是好事，但「讓利說」卻不啻意味著公開接受「統戰」，初期雖能嚐到甜頭，長期卻使自己陷於被動。舉例來說，最近傳出大陸將對台灣藝人祭出「限娛令」，就是因為我對大陸藝人的演出限制太不對等所致。再如，兩岸如何加速金融合作以壯大台資企業及兩岸貿易，是極迫切的事，但因政府不放心陸銀來台，連帶延宕台灣金融機構登陸時機。缺乏取捨氣魄，就注定只能在小事小利上打轉。

兩岸的來往，不能一直停留在獨沽「政治味」面向，而需進入更務實的經濟味，乃至在文化、娛樂和學術等不同層面相互暈染。就像虱目魚有各種不同吃法，能夠讓五味並陳，才會突破單一皮相，進入更深層、更全面的了解，擺脫近利式的統戰框架。從虱目魚、石斑到文旦，從商業廣告、金融合作到藝人登台演出，兩岸交流還有太多領域未被觸及；在這種情況下，只出口幾趟虱目魚，就強要解讀漁民的政治意向，不嫌太魯莽了點嗎？