A letter from Professor Guo Huaren to the faculty and students of the College of Agriculture regarding the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement

Dear students:

The student movement against the cross-strait service trade agreement has been going on for nearly a week now, and among so many students, there are also students from our own department. Some people ask, are there any provisions about agriculture in the service trade agreement, and why should students of the agronomy department go join the commotion? In fact, the relationship between the service trade agreement and agriculture is hidden in the wording of its provisions, and the impact on our country's agriculture is enormous; as a student of the agronomy department, you cannot afford not to know this when discussing it with friends. Teachers have a responsibility to make students understand, and this is why I am writing to all of you.

The basic essence of the service trade agreement is that it stands on the side of enterprises planning to invest in China, but it may have a profound negative impact on domestic enterprises and employment; scholars have already explained these arguments very clearly, so below I will only address agriculture.

Mr. Hao Ming-yi, who angrily resigned his position as national policy advisor out of dissatisfaction with the Ma government's service trade agreement, said that Ma Ying-jeou is "destroying Taiwan." Leaving everything else aside, the service trade agreement together with the free economic pilot zone amounts to "destroying agriculture."

Those related to agriculture in the specific commitments table of the service trade agreement:

(1) Advisory services incidental to animal husbandry, allowing Chinese service providers to establish commercial presence in Taiwan in the form of sole proprietorships, joint ventures, partnerships and branch offices, and to provide advisory services incidental to animal husbandry.

The problem is: our country's animal husbandry technology is quite advanced, so why would we need advisors from China? If it is not an attempt to steal our country's technology, then there must be other plans, such as bringing in Chinese labor under the name of advisors.

(2) Auxiliary services for various types of transport, allowing Chinese service providers to establish commercial presence in Taiwan and provide warehousing services and freight forwarding services.

The problem is: if warehousing and freight do not exclude agricultural items such as agricultural production materials, agricultural products and food, then in the future, in conjunction with the free economic pilot zone, Chinese capital will be allowed to set up food processing plants, then import cheap primary agricultural products from China that may have very serious pesticide residues, and then through warehousing and freight set up in Taiwan, it can be said to "take the whole plate," which will make our country's farmers, who already find it very difficult to operate, unable to compete, and their survival will definitely be at risk. If this is not destroying agriculture, then what is destroying agriculture? If warehousing and freight industries are opened to Chinese capital, and if our country's grain supply and marketing come under control, then it really would be "destroying the country."

Of course, the government will raise many rebuttals to the doubts of scholars and industry people from all sides, but its answers are full of loopholes. Take the Council of Agriculture's response to the doubts of agricultural economics scholar Professor Chen Chi-chung as an example; Professor Chen pointed out that our country's annual agricultural raw materials used by the public and by industry amount to about 170 billion yuan, and according to the government's negotiated content, if no limits are set, most of them could be replaced by Chinese raw materials, with annual losses higher than the total agricultural budget (about 130 billion yuan).

The Council of Agriculture's answer is that the raw materials within this 170 billion yuan are mainly "light processing," but what the free economic pilot zone does is "deep processing," so there is no problem. The question is what "light processing" or "deep processing" (a term from the Chinese side) actually means; it was not clearly stipulated in the negotiations, so it truly cannot win public trust.

Furthermore, it is generally believed that the economic pilot zone will use lower-cost foreign (especially Chinese) agricultural raw materials, squeezing out domestic raw materials, which is very unfavorable to our country's farmers. Do you know how the Council of Agriculture rebutted this?

The Council of Agriculture's "Free Economic Pilot Zone - Agricultural Value-Added Policy Explanation" says something completely opposite, arguing that the pilot zone can instead increase the use of domestic (which should mean locally produced) raw materials. An official gave an explanation, and I will copy it directly: ”For example, British black tea and European chocolate are very good examples; the countries where the brands are located do not produce the raw materials, yet they have created excellent cross-national brand sales”.

But clearly what everyone is worried about is that the free economic pilot zone will not use domestic raw materials; isn't the Council of Agriculture confessing this? It turns out the plan is to let enterprises import cheap foreign products and process them for export so they can make money. The problem is that in this way, not only do domestic raw materials lose outlets, but in the future, when labeled ”Made in Taiwan”, it will instead damage the brand of high-quality domestic products, truly gaining little while losing much.

The official also wrote about pineapple cakes, saying they can increase the use of native pineapple, ”increasing the use of domestic raw materials”. Come on, the surge in pineapple cake usage was due to the ingenuity, branding and advertising of domestic businesses, and it happened before there was any service trade agreement or free economic pilot zone. In the future, if these agreements become reality, a large amount of Chinese native pineapple will flood in, domestic native pineapple will have no ability to resist, and native pineapple farmers will be wiped out. If this is not destroying agriculture, then what is destroying agriculture.