Toward a Mutually-Acceptable Cross-Strait Exchange Policy

Toward a Mutually-Acceptable Cross-Strait Exchange Policy
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2014

Executive Summary: Two days ago, former Vice President Vincent Siew and former Mainland Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan jointly chaired the annual meeting of the “Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit." Citizen groups protested outside the venue and denounced the meeting as a cross-Strait “power elites summit.” They expressed intense dissatisfaction with current cross-Strait economic cooperation. Siew said cross-Strait economic cooperation must abandon old ways that benefit only a few people, and adopt a new cross-Strait cooperation framework that benefits more people. Zeng Peiyan and Gong Qinggai echoed the sentiments of SMEs and the grassroots.

Full Text Below:

Two days ago, former Vice President Vincent Siew and former Mainland Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan jointly chaired the annual meeting of the “Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit." Hundreds of people from industry, government and academia on both sides attended. Current ARATS chairman and former president Chen Deming, Chen Yunlin, and Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Chief Gong Qing participated in an advisory capacity. The summit was held
at a sensitive moment, right after Taiwan's nine in one elections. Citizen groups protested outside the venue and denounced the meeting as a cross-Strait “power elites summit.” They expressed intense dissatisfaction with current cross-Strait economic cooperation. Siew said cross-Strait economic cooperation must abandon old ways that benefit only a few people, and adopt a new cross-Strait cooperation framework that benefits more people. Zeng Peiyan and Gong Qinggai echoed the sentiments of SMEs and the grassroots.

The "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" was chaired by cross-Strait representatives Vincent Siew and Zeng Peiyan. Participants included heavyweights from both sides. It was seen as a KMT-CCP forum, as a cross-Strait forum and cross-Strait business exchange and cooperation platform between participants of equal rank. It was an important symbol of cross-Strait economic cooperation. The summit was officially established last year. It promotes specific cooperation plans and projects affecting macroeconomic exchange, smart appliances, energy and petrochemical equipment, financial, cultural and creative industries, biotech, health care, and small and medium enterprises.

It must be said that in recent years the effectiveness of cross-Strait economic cooperation has diminished. The benefits have obviously accrued to big business and consortia. provoking an intense political and economic backlash on Taiwan. During the nine in one elections, beneficial cross-Strait cooperation was denounced as a “power elites monopoly”.  This had a palpable impact on the ruling party in the election. Following the election, even party members have begun to question cross-Strait economic cooperation.

Since the Ma government took office in 2008, its main theme has been the promotion of cross-Strait economic liberalization and cooperation. Its goal has been to revive Taiwan's economy and reap a peace dividend that will benefit all walks of life, not just a few. Yet a few short years later, cross-Strait economic cooperation has become a major social issue. It has even become a liability to the ruling party's election efforts. The Ma government and many people are baffled. They blame the problem on distortions spread by the green camp cyber army.

Cross-Strait economic cooperation has led to social unrest, growing concern, and public resentment, for three main reasons. One. The form of exchange. Economic exchange and cooperation platforms such as the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" are attended mostly by representatives of big business and consortia. They inevitably take on the coloration of special interests. KMT elders often lead delegations of “hong ding” entrepreneurs to Beijing to meet with or play host to Mainland leaders. This inevitably leaves ordinary people with the impression of business government collusion and political privilege. These forms of cross-Strait exchanges are bound to engender public resentment. They are sure to be criticized and demonized. They likely to be adverse to long-term cooperation and regular exchanges.

Two. The form of cooperation. Cross-Strait industrial cooperation tends to treat Mainland China as the main body. The Ministry of Economic Affairs cross-Strait industrial cooperation bypass plan concentrates too much on developing the Mainland market. This increases the magnetic attraction that the Mainland has on Taiwan based talent, capital, and technology. This is unfavorable to full employment and salary increases. Furthermore, Mainland economic growth has slowed sharply in recent years. Hence the Mainland’s efforts to promote industrial restructuring and upgrading. Mainland companies have plagiarized Taiwan experience, talent, and technology. This has swiftly narrowed the gap between the two sides. The result has been rapid economic transition from a complementary cross-Strait relationship, to a competitive one. In recent years, Mainland investments abroad have increased. Political constraints have blocked investments in Taiwan. The transfer of talent, capital, and technology have remained a one-way street, leading to public unease.

Three. The distribution of benefits. The above model for cross-Strait exchange, cooperation, and market opening are the heart of the STA and MTA. The beneficiaries are clearly consortia and large enterprises. SMEs, young people, and the grassroots generally fail to benefit. Worse, they are often victims. As a result, cross-Strait economic cooperation continues to lose public support.

As a result, over the past six years, the benefits of cross-Strait economic cooperation have gradually been diminished and distorted. Reform is now essential. In the future, we should consider the interests of a majority of people. Siew advocates an upgraded version of cross-strait economic relations. He suggested that cross-Strait business cooperation should have two strategic objectives. They should be "palpable" and they should "share the benefits." Zeng Peiyan also says the two sides should explore new modes of business cooperation, pave the way for SME cooperation, and improve the people's livelihood on both sides of the Strait. As we can see, both sides share the same objectives. Both sides want economic cooperation to benefit the grassroots equitably.

Specifically, cross-Strait economic cooperation should change in three ways. One. Exchanges should be among the common folk. The cross-Strait exchange platform should not focus on large companies and consortia. It should help SMEs, young people, and the grassroots. Two. Cooperation should improve people's livelihood. It should establish and expand SME partnerships, web services, and public services. These should be the focus of future attention. Three. The benefits should be universal. Market opening and cross-Strait cooperation should make people feel good. They should not benefit only isolated companies and organizations. We hope the "cross-strait entrepreneurs summit" will work towards that goal. We hope the two governments will take specific measures to implement them.

社論－兩岸共商人民有感的交流政策
2014年12月17日 04:10
本報訊

由前副總統蕭萬長和大陸前國務院副總理曾培炎擔任理事長的「兩岸企業家峰會」年會前兩天在台北舉行，兩岸產官學界共數百人出席，大陸海協會現任及前任會長陳德銘、陳雲林和國台辦副主任龔清概以顧問身分與會。這次峰會舉行適值九合一選舉後台灣政局丕變的敏感時刻，公民團體在會場外抗議並嚴詞批評是兩岸權貴峰會，表露出對當前兩岸經濟合作的強烈不滿。蕭萬長致詞時則特別強調，兩岸經濟合作要摒棄少數人受益的舊思維，並採取兩岸合作升級版的新架構，讓多數民眾有感、受益；曾培炎和龔清概致詞亦呼應看重中小企業和基層民眾的心聲。

「兩岸企業家峰會」由在兩岸有代表性的蕭萬長和曾培炎領軍，成員涵蓋兩岸重量級企業，被視為是和國共論壇、海峽論壇同位階的兩岸企業交流及合作平台，在兩岸整體經濟合作上具有重要象徵意義。峰會在去年正式成立後，設立了宏觀經濟交流、資訊家電、能源石化裝備、金融、文創、生技與健康照護及中小企業等7個小組，推動具體合作計畫和項目。

但不可諱言，近年兩岸經濟合作的效益日益遞減，利益分配又明顯向大企業和財團傾斜，因而在台灣引發強烈政經效應，這次九合一選舉兩岸合作利益被「權貴」、「買辦」壟斷的影射和抨擊，在一定程度上衝擊執政黨選情，選後黨內檢討兩岸經濟合作的聲浪亦浮上檯面。

自2008年馬政府上任以來，推動以經濟開放及合作為主軸的兩岸政策，為台灣經濟引進活水，和平紅利普及各行各業，並非只有少數人獲益，但不過幾年時間，何以兩岸經濟合作會備受社會質疑，甚至成為執政黨的選舉負債？馬政府及很多黨政人士皆百思不得其解，甚至將其歸咎網軍負面文宣的扭曲。

追根究柢，兩岸經濟合作日益變質及引發社會日增的憂慮與反感，主要是出於三方面因素：其一、交流形式。「兩岸企業家峰會」等經濟交流合作平台，主要成員及參與者多屬重量級企業及財團代表，難免被賦予利益色彩。而國民黨大老經常帶領紅頂企業家赴北京和大陸領導人會面，頻率之高，令社會側目；大陸重量級人士來台，知名企業及財團爭相求見或作東招待，看在庶民眼裡，不免有政商掛勾及特權利益的印象和聯想。這種兩岸交流形式愈是深化，民間反感愈深，愈容易被批評及妖魔化，不利兩岸長期合作和正常交往。

其二、合作模式。兩岸企業合作多以大陸為主體，經濟部推動兩岸產業合作的搭橋計畫，也多以開發大陸市場為目標，因而強化大陸對台灣人才、資金、技術等磁吸效應，不利台灣就業及薪資提升。再者，近年大陸經濟增長大幅減緩，因而致力推動產業轉型升級，陸企爭相抄襲台商經驗及重金挖掘台灣人才和技術，快速拉近兩岸產業差距，導致兩岸經濟從互補關係快速轉變為競爭關係。大陸近年對外投資倍數成長，對台投資卻因台灣種種政治限制而動彈不得，兩岸人才、資金、技術始終呈單向流動現象，造成人心不平。

其三、利益分配。上述兩岸交流及合作模式，加上以開放市場為核心的兩岸服貿、貨貿協議，受益者明顯偏向財團及大型企業，對中小企業、年輕人及基層民眾普遍無感，甚至還是受害者，從而讓兩岸經濟合作民意基礎不斷流失。

有鑑於此，6年多來逐漸變質、利益傾斜的兩岸經濟合作型態，已到了非改不可的地步，未來改革大方向應以多數人利益為導向，蕭萬長主張應打造升級版兩岸經濟關係，並建議兩岸企業合作須設定「人民有感」及「利益共享」兩大策略目標；曾培炎亦主張兩岸應積極探索企業合作新模式，為中小企業合作鋪路搭橋，增進和改善兩岸民生。可見兩岸目標一致，就是要讓經濟合作更貼近基層民眾，利益雨露均霑。

在具體作為上，我們主張兩岸經濟合作應朝三大方向調整：一是交流親民化，兩岸交流平台不應以大企業及財團為重心，打造涵蓋中小企業、青年及基層民眾的多元化平台至為必要；二是合作民生化，重視中小企業合作網路建構及擴大民生服務業合作，應是未來重點；三是利益普及化，兩岸開放政策及合作計畫，必須讓人民普遍感受到好處，避免只圖利特定企業及少數團體。我們期待「兩岸企業家峰會」能朝以上方向努力，也期待兩岸政府能夠共商具體做法，落實推動。