Monday, March 24, 2014

More LY links + MOFA Letter


Busy today, but my friend Sean Su is live in the LY in English

ADDED -- Chiayi, Kaohsiung, and Tainan, all DPP-ruled, are withdrawing their police officers from the protest in Taipei.

Dafydd Fell compares the student occupation of the legislature with the totally bogus red ant protests against Chen Shui-bian. It's hard for me to resist snark here. The last paragraph contains an interesting observation.

List of links to good stuff in Chinese

I'll add more as they flow into my inbox....

FOR DISCUSSION: Was the big winner from yesterday's police attack on the protesters the LY occupiers? What if the government had let the EY be occupied for a while? I'm wondering if the quick removal of the Executive Yuan crowd actually limited the damage it did to the cause of the students in the LY.

++++++++++

Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs is slinging this around:

Foreign Press Liaison Office
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Republic of China (Taiwan)
March 22, 2014
Background information on the issue of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)
(1) The government of the Republic of China affirms the concern shown by students and the general public for national affairs, specifically, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services (TiSA), while calling for the expression of opinions through rational, peaceful and democratic means. The government is willing to engage in democratic, rational dialogue [MT-for example, firing water cannons at peaceful protesters] with all who hold differing views, but cannot endorse the student occupation of the legislative chamber in a demand for dialogue. Nor can the government accept the students’ preconditions for dialogue—withdrawal of the TiSA and passage by the Legislative Yuan of an act providing oversight of cross-strait negotiations.[MT-such an act has been proposed for years]
(2) The ROC is a democratic nation governed by the rule of law [MT -- rule of martial law, even]. The TiSA is now under review by the Legislative Yuan [MT -- it is NOT under review, the review was cut off before it started]. The differing opinions of the ruling and opposition parties, as well as of different sectors of society, should be worked out through the normal legislative procedures of the independent Legislative Yuan, until consensus is reached [MT-wouldn't that be wonderful? Except the KMT didn't want to do that]. As the present controversy over the TiSA stems from a procedural dispute between the ruling and opposition party caucuses [MT -- the procedure had been decided upon, then the KMT unilaterally ignored it], the key to its resolution is the prompt reinstatement of legislative operations and guarantee of constitutional order. The Legislative Yuan’s internal negotiation mechanism can bring the dispute to a peaceful end. The results of legislative review are not something that the president or Executive Yuan can control.
(3)The review process for the TiSA is not a “black box operation.” Since the pact was signed in June 2013, the Legislative Yuan has held 20 public hearings on it [MT -- what about before it was signed?]. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, Mainland Affairs Council and related agencies have jointly organized over 110 forums with 46 industries, and relevant agencies have briefed the Legislative Yuan three times.
(4) The TiSA is not an “unequal agreement.” In the pact, mainland China allows Taiwan access to 80 subsectors, compared to 64 in Taiwan for mainland China—many of which were in substance opened already. Moreover, Taiwan will enjoy more favorable access to the mainland market than other World Trade Organization members, but none of the subsectors opened to mainland China will exceed WTO standards.
(5) The TiSA will not open Taiwan to mainland Chinese workers, and will not change immigration policies with regard to mainland Chinese. The pact will create 12,000 jobs for Taiwanese people [MT -- haha], boost our GDP and industrial competitiveness, and contribute to the country’s liberalization and internationalization. On the whole, the agreement does more good than harm, and is crucial to the country’s future economic development.[MT-crucial if you are a big business. otherwise, no]
(6) If the TiSA cannot be passed and thus come into force, the three major repercussions will be: Taiwan’s service industries will lose the advantage of early entry to the mainland Chinese market; Taiwan’s accession to regional economic integration mechanisms—including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—will be delayed [MT evidence for this?]; and future talks with mainland China under the Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) on a trade in goods agreement and dispute settlement mechanism will be influenced, which will jeopardize the development of Taiwan’s external trade.
(7) Opposition to the TiSA is based on misrepresentations of fact.
1. A rumor to the effect that one mainland Chinese investor could apply to bring 45 employees to Taiwan: Under the TiSA, when a mainland Chinese enterprise invests US$200,000 or more, it can apply to bring in two employees to manage its interests in Taiwan; with investment of US$500,000 and above, one more employee may be brought in, with an upper limit of seven. Even if investment exceeds US$3.3 million, only the individual investor will be allowed in as chief executive. The rumor that one investor could bring in 45 people is a misrepresentation of the facts.
2. A rumor that mainland Chinese company officials and their families could obtain long-term residence in Taiwan: Under the pact, officials or technical specialists of mainland Chinese enterprises in their first year in Taiwan could in principle receive only a multiple re-entry permit valid for one year. Starting from the second year, the firm’s business volume would have to reach NT$10 million (US$326,279) before the employee could apply for a new re-entry permit. The government has not given mainland Chinese investors, company officials or technical specialists unlimited entry permits, nor has it permitted their long-term residence.
3. A rumor that the TiSA will lead to widespread unemployment: As of the end of January 2014, the government had approved 495 mainland Chinese investment cases, with investment of US$870 million. The mainland company officials, specialists and family members who have come to Taiwan in association with these cases number just 264, while these firms have provided jobs for 9,624 Taiwanese. It is evident that mainland Chinese investment not only brings in capital for our industries and financial market, but also creates jobs for our people.

_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

28 comments:

TaiwanJunkie said...

It is instructive to see the support coming in from outside of Taiwan.

The biggest source of that support is coming from Hong Kong. This is extremely important as they have experienced FTA with China (CEPA) first hand for the last 10 years. They can see the rich getting richer, they can see the rich from China throwing their weight around. Taiwan needs to pay attention to this voice of support.

Another reason why Hong Kong is supporting Taiwan is because they fear what would happen once Taiwan move down the road to become the second HK. Their lots will get worse. Whatever China has done with HK so far will pale in comparison to what it can do once Taiwan is annexed. China is still keeping up appearances for the sake of wooing Taiwan.

Before agreeing to become the second wife, see how the guy is treating his first wife.

Anonymous said...

Re: the restriction to Fujian you mention. Do you have any links / posts that explain more about that. I've heard it bandied about but cannot find anything that states that. The main mention of Fujian I've come across are that it'll lift current restrictions that are already in place. A number of sources state that Taiwanese business, hospitals etc will be able to open in all provinces, so I'm really curious about your claim.

Michael Turton said...

There's an english language analysis of the pact in my first post from NTU econ chair. But lots of reports have said that for several sectors taiwan firms are restricted to Fujian.

Anonymous said...

王丹网站 Wang Dan's Page
預告:

大家還記得前幾天我說過,25日將宣布本站的重大的戰略部署吧?

要是你能跟我一起耗到午夜鐘聲敲響,時間進入25日,我就會在倒數之後進行這個重大宣布。

該宣布保證會讓各位網友驚訝和興奮得吱吱亂叫!也將是本站發展歷史上的一座重要的里程碑。

(超會弔胃口的)

Anonymous said...

http://www.ecfa.org.tw/EcfaAttachment/%E9%99%84%E4%BB%B6%E4%B8%80%E3%80%81%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E8%B2%BF%E6%98%93%E7%89%B9%E5%AE%9A%E6%89%BF%E8%AB%BE%E8%A1%A8.pdf

This is not my field, but I find it strange that for Taiwanese sectors the promises are defined within the agreements, without reference to rules and regulations outside the agreements; while for most of the Chinese sectors they specifically mention approvals from related authorities or related law, variables outside the agreement.

Anonymous said...

1) Ma's chief adviser, Kim Pu-Chong, just flied back from the US and probably still has jet leg. Otherwise his calculation is usually in the game tree several steps deeper than his opponents. Ma-Kim acted too hastily last night. So LY occupiers won for this round.

2) Ma-Kim is waiting for the LY occupiers to get exhausted so the police will have an easier job to remove them.

3) My recommendation for LY opponents: give Ma-Kim a few more random surprise like the EY occupation at random places random time. One goal is to make the police and the pro-China factions exhausted before LY occupiers do. The second goal is to keep news of protesting at the front page for the next several weeks.

pug_ster said...

I really don't know what is the deal with Taiwanese protesting against this trade bill. First of all, this is an economic pact, not a political one. China has no plans to annex Taiwan, so it is just ridiculous to assume this. Despite what you read, CEPA between China and Hong Kong has been great in Hong Kong because Hong Kong's gdp has jumped more than 6% in 2004 as a result of signing the CEPA.

Ask any economist that this trade pact would hurt or benefit Taiwan and they will overwhelmingly agree that it would benefit Taiwan more.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/CBIZ-01-240314.html

Taiwan Echo said...

"I'm wondering if the quick removal of the Executive Yuan crowd actually limited the damage it did to the cause of the students in the LY."

good point. It prevents the protestors from having 2 leader groups.

But I guess the price of EY been taken over is too high.

Michael Turton said...

Ask any economist that this trade pact would hurt or benefit Taiwan and they will overwhelmingly agree that it would benefit Taiwan more.

No doubt. They also overwhelmingly failed to foresee the housing bubble collapse, pretend that there is no such thing as fraud in economic behavior (Wm Black has been writing on how economics is three parts fantasy for years), etc. Since they subscribe to the neoliberal religion, I am sure all of them would agree.

First of all, this is an economic pact, not a political one. China has no plans to annex Taiwan, so it is just ridiculous to assume this.

Hahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Michael

Anonymous said...

According to the Taipei Times, the leader of the EY occupation is claiming he heard about it from Facebook posts while on a bus and decided to join and that he did not initiate it.

He'd better hope the prosecutors don't have the feed or video of the speeches outside the LY because that has him on there, on a microphone, calling on protesters to take the EY. At the same time that he was supposedly "on a bus".

James said...

I'm not sure who that anon was mentioning the sectors that are open countrywide or whether he/she read my blog mentioning that the other day (even used the same phrasal verb I did - 'bandied about') but you've completely ducked the question, Michael.

"But lots of reports have said that for several sectors taiwan firms are restricted to Fujian."

Firstly, you've backtracked into "several sectors". That's not what you/John Tkacik et al were originally claiming. Second, you're using weasel words. Lots of reports? Come on - that's not good enough.

Also, I really would like someone to show me how/why the KMT's forcing through of the bill was illegal. Dodgy, using the letter of the law in way that is against the legislative/democratic spirit sure, but illegal? I'm not saying this facetiously. I really would like to know as I have seem some legal experts taking it on in terms of the status of the pact. (i.e. regulation v procedural issue etc.)

Grant said...

"China has no plans to annex Taiwan"

There's no way you posted this straight faced.

Anonymous said...

"I'm wondering if the quick removal of the Executive Yuan crowd actually limited the damage it did to the cause of the students in the LY."

The government should have let the Exec Yuan crowd take it over and occupy it just like the Legislative Yuan. Actually, the government should just let protesters take over any government building they choose.

No, the authorities acted decisively and effectively. Of course some force had to be used. It's very naive of the protesters and some of their supporters to be crying that the authorities should have left them alone and let them occupy the buildings.

I highly doubt that most sectors in the mainland opened to Taiwan companies will only be limited to Fujian. Otherwise what's the point of it being a cross-strait pact, itd just be a Taiwan-Fujian pact. Unless people can present specific proof stating that I think it's just false.

CP

Anonymous said...

It seems that one residual effect of the CTSSA will be to effectively cut off the sources of Taiwanese financial power in both property holdings and in SMEs. This may cripple the DPP and other pro-Taiwan political parties as they rely on the financial support of these groups.

Taiwanese history has traditionally led to the consolidation of property by Taiwanese families who have farmed and lived in Taiwan for generations. These families often relied on the benefit of extended family labor networks to start and maintain SMEs.

Mainlanders. on the other hand, gravitated to the power provided by the state and, at least early on, were not interested in land ownership for a temporary stay on Taiwan.

Through the strategic use of a maintained property bubble and the Service Agreement they can snap up the wealth and stamp out the locally owned SMEs in favor of Chinese owned mega corporations.

Anonymous said...

Could you provide the link where you got this information from?
Thanks

Michael Turton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Turton said...

Firstly, you've backtracked into "several sectors". That's not what you/John Tkacik et al were originally claiming. Second, you're using weasel words. Lots of reports? Come on - that's not good enough.

Oh, I sorry. I didn't realize I was supposed to drop all my work and answer your questions, James. And also that my answers have to meet your awesome stringent criteria.

Please don't bother me again with a question whose answer is easily available on Google or in the English language analysis in the post below which I directed you to in my first comment.

What a total wanker you are.

No scratch that, just don't bother me at all.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

highly doubt that most sectors in the mainland opened to Taiwan companies will only be limited to Fujian. Otherwise what's the point of it being a cross-strait pact, itd just be a Taiwan-Fujian pact. Unless people can present specific proof stating that I think it's just false.

The analysis by the NTU prof is in the first post I wrote on this topic. The Fujian stuff is in part 5. The whole thing is frightening. It's a total sellout.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Hey Mike, just want to say thanks for all the work that you put into this blog. Don't let the knuckleheads get you down.

Readin said...

"Ask any economist that this trade pact would hurt or benefit Taiwan and they will overwhelmingly agree that it would benefit Taiwan more."

I'll largely skip the particulars of this pact since I don't know that much about it, but I want to point out something about economists.

From what I've seen of economists in public, they tend to focus on numbers like GDP to determine whether some agreement or pact will help a country. They often overlook the question of how that wealth will be distributed. Will it all go to one person or will everyone get an equal share?
Will the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

The tend to ignore environmental impacts and political impacts as well. There is a lot more to what is good for a country than just how much money it makes in aggregate.

One thing I've heard conflicting reports about is how much immigration from China this pact will create. Do you think, when economists say the pact will be good for Taiwan, that they are looking at how Taiwan's culture will be changed by large numbers of foreigners coming in, and whether Taiwanese people want their culture so changed? Do you think they consider how those foreigners, who will eventually get citizenship, will vote and whether Taiwanese want to have their votes diluted by large numbers of foreigners who will largely vote for only one of the parties? Do the economists consider overcrowding (particularly in Taiwan which is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world)?.

We get similar arguments in America, with economists crowing about how large scale immigration from Mexico and Central America helps the American economy grow. It helps large companies by depressing the wages and working conditions of poor Americans, but on the other hand it depresses the wages and working conditions of poor Americans. It changes our culture that we love (and that many of us think was instrumental in making America rich and free). It upsets the political balance by bringing in people who overwhelmingly vote for only one political party. This issue is causing a lot of tension in America. Why would Taiwan want to have this problem too?

Readin said...

A comment on the EY vs the LY: I suspect the swift reaction on the EY may have to do with the danger of leaking classified data. The executive is traditionally where most handling of foreign policy and the military rests. It seems far more likely that classified documents were put in danger by the takeover at the EY than a the LY. If that is the case the police really didn't have a choice - they had to act.

Michael Turton said...

Link to NTC Econ Dept Chair Analysis from the post below.



Michael Turton said...

A comment on the EY vs the LY: I suspect the swift reaction on the EY may have to do with the danger of leaking classified data.

Thanks... I hadn't thought of that.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Another reason why Hong Kong is supporting Taiwan is because they fear what would happen once Taiwan move down the road to become the second HK. Their lots will get worse. Whatever China has done with HK so far will pale in comparison to what it can do once Taiwan is annexed. China is still keeping up appearances for the sake of wooing Taiwan.

Yep. Finally Hong Kong people are starting to come around on that.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Another reason why Hong Kong is supporting Taiwan is because they fear what would happen once Taiwan move down the road to become the second HK. Their lots will get worse. Whatever China has done with HK so far will pale in comparison to what it can do once Taiwan is annexed. China is still keeping up appearances for the sake of wooing Taiwan.

Yep. Finally Hong Kong people are starting to come around on that.

Michael

Anonymous said...

I know for a fact that many of the leaders at the core of the protest are NTU trained economists. Grad students from the dept. of economics and among the best pool of talent in Taiwan.

Anonymous said...

It appears you've misunderstood the process regarding Fujian. The NTU Econ chair uses PC Home as an example so I'll use that. It is true that Chinese shoppers will not be able to access PC Home in Taiwan, however the opening in Fujian won't restrict the company only to Fujian. Under terms of the agreement, they will have to establish an office there but customers all over China will have access to it, and PC Home will be able to sell products throughout China. That is all the Fujian restriction means, and it's really no different to how a lot of cross-border ecommerce sites already operate globally.

Michael Turton said...

It appears you've misunderstood the process regarding Fujian.

You stopped when you got to PCHome, didn't you.

Michael