Business and Other News

Liang Kuo-yuan (梁國源), president of Polaris Research Institute (寶華綜合經濟研究院), has argued that ECFA talks should be held on a 'brother to brother' basis and not 'father to son' and that “We’ve got to try to get China’s understanding or promise that it will let Taiwan sign other kinds of [economic] framework [agreements] with ASEAN countries.” Although I broadly welcome this critique, what I find objectionable is that Liang spells out the relationship between China and Taiwan as familial and not international. If the US and the UK can have a 'special relationship' that also respects sovereignty, why can't Taiwan and China? Furthermore, is it a good idea to 'get China's understanding or promise that it will LET Taiwan sign other agreements with ASEAN countries'?. I would argue, like the DPP, that Taiwanese should demand Taiwan's freedom to sign FTAs with other nations a prerequisite for signing ECFA but that is something the PRC will not agree to since their aim is annexation by economic unification, not giving Taiwanese the tools and freedom to further deepen and secure their existing de facto economic and political independence. Where I do agree with Liang is that “... our relationship with China should never turn into that of a father and his son.” It seems that ECFA negotiations are not really going to produce results that benefit Taiwan in the short or long run. Taiwan News thinks they are unequal from the start and carved in a black box whilst some scholars argue that they will end in Taiwan losing over 250,000 agricultural jobs despite the Government's insistance that agriculture will not be affected.

In other news, China will consider 'issues' such as reevaluating the Reminbi but only AFTER other countries have ended their stimulus programmes:

“If global [partners are] ready to do exit strategy, China is ready ... including various issues — liquidity issue, exchange issue,” he told the forum.

Interestingly, there was some balance and wisdom from the Chinese side (Zhu Min (朱民), deputy governor of China’s central bank):

“The crisis tells us that a purely export model is not sustainable and we’re working on it,” he said. “Things have improved, but it takes time.”

“I’m still an old fashioned person. If the glass is OK, I’m not going to throw it away to buy a crystal one even if my income increases. I’ll still use it,” he said.

That may be true but on the other side, its a pity Chinese producers don't seem to have the same scruples about exporting 'glass under the name of crystal'. I guess at the bottom of the issue is the waste of societies that would rather buy cheap and dangerous Chinese products than take a leaf out of the Chinese book and save marginal income rather than spending it on crystal.

In other news freedom of information in China took a small but important step recently in one local Government's release of its budget information online.

And finally, could Taiwan abolish the death penalty? The Justice Minister thinks it COULD happen but only after there is public consensus (and how do you measure that outside of a referendum?):

Taiwan will gradually push for the abolition of the death penalty after a consensus is formed, Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng said Monday.

Her comments followed a statement by entertainer Pai Ping-ping saying she was so opposed to the abolition she wanted to take examinations in order to be able to execute death row prisoners. The kidnapping and murder of her 17-year-old only daughter Pai Hsiao-yen and the hunt for her killers in 1997 was one of the most high-profile crimes in Taiwan.

Wang said she had been set on abolishing the death penalty from before she took office in May 2008. However, she would wait until a consensus in society had formed before gradually promoting the abolition.

A majority of people in Taiwan opposed the policy (how does she know this?), but international data showed that the existence of the death penalty and the level of crime in a country were unrelated, Wang told the Ministy of Justice year-end news conference Monday.

Most governments which abolished the death penalty faced majority opposition from the public, she said. As an example, she named French President Francois Mitterrand who ended executions after he came to power in 1981 even though 60 percent of the public opposed his move.

A ministry taskforce would collect opinions for and against from experts in order to find a positive way to allay public fears and concerns, Wang said.

“I’m not mentioning the abolition of the death penalty today and pushing it immediately,” she said.