| Subjects: |
- The problems resulting from cross-strait exchanges should be resolved through the existing platform
- Mainland agricultural products imported via the “Mini-Three-Links” can only be sold in Kinmen, Matsu and Penghu and can not be transshipped to Taiwan
- It is hoped that mainland Chinese public health agencies can provide assistance and inform Taiwan as soon as possible of the test results for the passengers with suspected symptoms of H1N1 flu
- When a civilian organization is commissioned to handle cross-strait affairs, commissioned personnel have the same duty as civil servants to avoid conflicts of interest
- Civil verdicts handed down in mainland China must undergo a “recognition” process before they can be carried out in Taiwan
- The texts of cross-strait agreements include agreement that both sides can establish relevant organizations with regard to individual issues
|
MAC Regular Press Briefing
| |
Briefer : Johnnason Liu, Deputy Minister
Date : May 14, 2009
Location : Taipei |
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
The problems resulting from cross-strait exchanges should be resolved through the existing platform
QUESTION: During the period of the upcoming Cross-Strait Forum, mainland China will announce a concrete policy in support of the Economic Zone on the West Coast of the Taiwan Strait. What is the MAC's position on this?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU: Taiwanese businessmen play an important role in various industries in mainland China. Various cross-strait issues can currently be handled through the institutionalized negotiation mechanism of the SEF and the ARATS. Generally speaking, the current emphasis should be placed on the overall structure and issue-management platform. Thinking along these lines, we believe further observation is needed in terms of the concept of an economic zone on the west coast of the Taiwan Strait and the role it might play. Right now we don't have any other opinion. In the future, we will make an explanation on this issue once mainland China has mapped out the concrete contents of its plan regarding an economic zone on the west coast of the Taiwan Strait.
QUESTION: What is the status of the penalties being imposed as a result of the China Times and domestic television stations carrying advertisements for the Cross-Strait Forum?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU: This is currently being handled by the relevant agencies.
Mainland agricultural products imported via the “Mini-Three-Links” can only be sold in Kinmen, Matsu and Penghu and can not be transshipped to Taiwan
QUESTION: On May 14, 2009 DPP legislators called a press conference indicating that between January and April, 2009, Mainland agricultural products staged a major invasion of the Taiwan market. What is the MAC's response? According to the data provided by the DPP, the amount of fresh fish imported from mainland China jumped six-fold and the amount of chilled fish increased four-fold compared with the previous year. What is the MAC’s interpretation of this?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU:
(1) The Council of Agriculture (COA) has already issued a press release on this with the following clarifications:
■ With regard to those concerned about Mainland agricultural products being imported to Taiwan via the “Mini-Three-Links,” the “Mini-Three-Links” policy already expressly stipulated that Mainland agricultural products imported this way can only be sold in Kinmen, Matsu and Penghu and can not be transshipped to Taiwan. This policy has not changed.
■ The Council of Agriculture stresses that the government has long had in place proper mechanisms to protect Taiwan agricultural products, including requirements that the Kinmen County government issue a certificate of origin for Kinmen agricultural products to be sold in Taiwan, that such products carried or mailed by tourists be clearly labeled as to item and weight and have a certificate of origin attached and that when mainland Chinese products are imported, Customs must verify the area of origin.
■ The Council of Agriculture in its press release gave examples proving that the volume of trade via the “Mini-Three-Links” is actually not very large. Taking fresh vegetables as an example, according to Kinmen Port statistics, 21.73 metric tons of ten different vegetables including cauliflower were imported from mainland China in 2007 and 2008. When it comes to the issue of peanut imports, the Council of Agriculture estimated a quota of 300 metric tons in 2002 based on the local population and individual consumption habits. In 2005 there were no imports and from 2006 to 2008 the total imports reached 290 metric tons, 42 metric tons and 541 metric tons respectively. The Kinmen County government extended the expiration date of the 2007 quota to 2008 and the quota will be exactly used up upon expiry of the quota validity period in 2008.
■ At the same time the COA explained that about 60 hectares of peanuts were planted in Kinmen with an annual harvest of about 132 metric tons and that in 2008 a total of one metric ton was shipped to Taiwan; there were four metric tons of garlic planted with an annual harvest of about 36 metric tons, and in 2008 a total of 0.5 metric tons of garlic was shipped to Taiwan.
■ As for carrying or mailing agricultural products, the COA will, in accordance with the control regulations as stipulated in the list announced in 2002, restrict peanuts, garlic, tiger lily buds, persimmons, bananas and longans to items that only tourists may carry. If the amount carried exceeds ten kilograms, then a certificate of origin is required. In addition, since garlic remains an agricultural product that is prohibited from being shipped to Kinmen and Taiwan from mainland China, the media report this January that eight tons of garlic powder imported from mainland China were, according to the COA’s understanding, a shipment falsely labeled as exporting from Malaysia. Customs released the shipment after collecting a deposit of twice the value of the goods. Subsequently, a container inspection revealed the operator had made a false report. In addition to confiscating the deposit according to the law, it was decided at the same time that in the future the COA will coordinate with Customs to improve their work in verifying the place of origin of agricultural products. In the future when false reports are discovered, in addition to confiscating and destroying the agricultural products as stipulated by law, a fine set at one to three times the value of the smuggled goods will be levied.
(2) After both sides of the Strait joined the WTO, many things have been operated in line with WTO mechanisms. For agricultural exports and imports there are many other factors to consider. For example, there are costs, production and marketing channels, and distribution networks. It is not possible to make policy decisions based on “volume.” For example, in 2005 Taiwan exported fresh and frozen vegetables to mainland China worth USD$90,000, while mainland China shipped fresh and frozen vegetables to Taiwan worth USD$ 1.96 million. So this can demonstrate that such a gap was not caused by the most recent political factors. Another example would be fruit. For many years Japan has been the main market for Taiwan’s overseas fruit sales. The reasons are the quick clearance at customs, the many distribution channels, and the fast distribution of the fruit, which means very little loss during transport. By contrast, in mainland China, customs clearance and distribution of goods are slow. Many operators select the best method to handle their products based on considerations of factors like cost and commercial profit. None of these have anything to do with policy considerations. Originally the issue of agricultural exchanges across the Strait involved differences in market, production area and natural environment, but we can still work hard so that when our agricultural products are exported to and sold in mainland China they will bring maximum profit.
It is hoped that mainland Chinese public health agencies can provide assistance and inform Taiwan as soon as possible of the test results for the passengers with suspected symptoms of H1N1 flu
QUESTION: This morning on a TransAsia flight to Hangzhou a passenger was quarantined because of a fever. What is the MAC's understanding of this incident?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU:
■ The Central Epidemics Command Center has reported that a Taiwanese passenger named Mr. Ye took TransAsia flight No. GE312 from Taipei Songshan Airport today en route to Hangzhou. The passenger on the plane showed signs of a fever and it was suspected that he had caught the new H1N1 swine flu. This passenger had taken a Cathay Pacific flight on May 12, 2009 from the US to Taiwan via Tokyo.
■ The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has notified mainland China that Mr. Ye boarded a flight on May 14 from Taipei to Hangzhou and that he showed signs of a fever while on board. Currently, with the assistance of Hangzhou airport personnel, he has been forcibly sent to a hospital for treatment. As for the other passengers, some of them are being taken care of and have not entered the country.
■ With regard to Mr. Ye's illness, we will notify his family members as soon as possible of the status as far as it is known. In addition, we hope that Mainland public health agencies will be able to provide proper care and all necessary assistance to Mr. Ye as well as take good care of the passengers and assist them. We also hope that Mainland public health agencies will inform us as soon as possible of the test results.
When a civilian organization is commissioned to handle cross-strait affairs, commissioned personnel have the same duty as civil servants to avoid conflicts of interest
QUESTION: A few days ago the Control Yuan requested the MAC in writing to clarify the issue of whether or not Chairman Chiang Pin-kung was involved in a conflict of interest. Has the MAC responded in writing to the Control Yuan?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU:
■ Because some of the material the Control Yuan is hoping to understand is only known to Chairman Chiang himself, a statement concerning a conflict of interest would be best left up to the person involved. The MAC is waiting for Chairman Chiang to provide the relevant information so that in responding to the Control Yuan the information we provide will be complete.
■ As stipulated in the Act Governing Relations Between People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, when a civilian organization is commissioned by the government to conduct cross-strait negotiations and the representatives and personnel handling the commission are engaged in doing their job, they have the same responsibility as civil servants to avoid conflicts of interest. That is to say, once the commission is entered into force, the relevant regulations governing conflicts of interest among civil servants are applied. When the legislation was being drafted, the Ministry of Justice drew up a complete set of accompanying measures focusing on conflict of interest factors. Because of this, the MAC will use the Public Officials’ Conflicts of Interest Prevention Act as the basis for its clarifications.
Civil verdicts handed down in mainland China must undergo a “recognition” process before they can be carried out in Taiwan
QUESTION: At a press conference on May 13, 2009, the legislators called into question the mutual recognition of civil judgments under the Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement, saying it could create a second wave of persecution against Taiwan businessmen. What is the MAC's view?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU:
■ Because the sentencing and judicial systems are not at all similar on either side of the Strait, in 1992 when the Act Governing Relations Between People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area was being formulated, the recognition of civil judgments was stipulated in the Act and the Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement signed at the third Chiang-Chen Talks also incorporated the stipulations of Article 74 of that Act. Therefore, civil verdicts handed down in mainland China must undergo a “recognition” process before they can be carried out in Taiwan. The process requires that litigants first make application to a Taiwan court. After the Taiwan court has agreed to hear the case, a substantive investigation takes place. Only when it is confirmed that the verdict conforms with the relevant Taiwan regulations can it then be carried out.
■In addition, there are differences with respect to time limits and scope of enforcement. Final and binding judgments on our side recognized now by mainland China can have the same validity there, but their regulations stipulate that applications for recognition of our judgments must be submitted within one year, though recently they have expressed an interest in relaxing this time limit to two years. As for validity of these judgments, we believe that once a judgment is confirmed as final and binding, there is no time limit. But our enforcement scope is more narrow, less flexible, than that of mainland China. This is because our courts are more rigorous. Many courts, under the principle of independent judgment, may have their own views and the Judicial Yuan is unable to change their judgments on specific cases as it pleases. The courts' decisions must be respected and litigants may get judicial relief by following the proper procedures. This is the inevitable result of judicial practice in a democratic country.
The texts of cross-strait agreements include agreement that both sides can establish relevant organizations with regard to individual issues
QUESTION: Today the China Times published the remarks made by MAC Minister Lai regarding the mutual establishment of organizations by both sides across the Strait. Can you please tell us whether Minister Lai's remarks can be taken as a formal position by President Ma on this issue? Also, has the MAC given any thought to the possibility of the establishment of representative offices by the SEF and the ARATS on each other’s side?
DEPUTY MINISTER LIU:
■ The implementation of cross-strait agreements requires the assistance of the other side, thus during negotiations some thoughts are given to expressing this in the text of the agreements themselves. For example, at a press conference held on May 13, mainland China’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office Spokesman Yang Yi mentioned charter flights, sea transport and tourism, all of which are the issues regulated by the agreements. Under the agreements, both sides will be able to set up relevant organizations to offer commercial services and assistance. In the future, if some new, specific issues will be added, we might perhaps consider whether we should include something every time in the text of agreements on specific issues or whether we can look at this in terms of common principles and list an item in accordance with a general principle. But the government must give this some overall thought and consideration. There should also be short-term and long-term planning at different phases. Right now we can only think about and discuss the short-term issues.
■ As for the mutual establishment of representative offices by the SEF and the ARATS, the Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area has already laid down a mechanism and a legal foundation for allowing the ARATS to set up representative offices in Taiwan. In addition, the Charter of the SEF provides a legal foundation for the SEF to set up its representative offices in mainland China. But this is just a foundation that enables the SEF and the ARATS to have a platform in the future for handling this issue.