Taiwan was listed as the number-one country in Asia in terms of overall competitiveness in the 2003-2004 Global Competitiveness Report released this week by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Globally, Taiwan ranks fifth. The main reason for Taiwan's high ranking among the 102 countries listed is that it performed very well in the technological arena, ranking third in the world behind the US and Finland. Taiwan's high ranking in the report has swept away the gloom caused by several years of economic downturn and concern about long-term economic sluggishness and higher unemployment. It has also discredited those singing the demise of Taiwan's economy.
In 2000, Taiwan's overall competitiveness ranked 11th globally. The country then leapt to seventh place in 2001, and then to fifth last year and this year. There has been continual progress. Beating Japan and Singapore in particular is no small achievement. Feelings of satisfaction and vindication aside, the results of the WEF evaluation need to be carefully studied, defects found in Taiwan's performance and the government and political parties called upon to rectify them.
Although Taiwan has been strong on the technological front, there is still much room for improvement. After several years of joint efforts by both ruling and opposition parties, Taiwan has achieved impressive results in IT and high-tech industries.
Taiwan commands a niche in the global market for high-tech products such as notebook and desktop computers, computer accessories, display panels, liquid crystal display monitors, disk drives, wireless products and mobile phones. Particularly noteworthy is the domination of the global chip foundry industry by Taiwan Semi-conductor Manufacturing Co and United Microelectronics Corp.
However, Taiwan's industries are still relying on other people's production systems, components and technologies. Even though original equipment manufacturing chip production has reached high standards, Taiwanese firms cannot participate in the setting of specifications. Their influence in global technology industries is limited, and they lack brand names of their own -- a problem that has been debated for a long time.
Even though Taiwan is viewed internationally as Asia's leader in terms of research and development capabilities, China pumped almost US$60 billion into research and development in 2001 -- the third-largest amount in the world after the US and Japan, according to a study by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. The large Chinese investment was sourced not only from local Chinese firms but also from foreign enterprises as well. This is an indicator of China's research and development potential in the technology sector. Neither the government nor the private sector should underestimate the possible threat posed by the other side of the Taiwan Strait in respect to technology industries.
The brilliant performance of Taiwan's private enterprises -- including in technology indices and the subtlety of business operations and strategies -- has garnered a positive evaluation from the WEF. However, despite some improvement, Taiwan's standing remains relatively slack in government efficiency, its economic and business environments and its credit rating.
While the administration has some soul-searching to do, all in all, Taiwan's high ranking in the WEF report has been a welcome shot in the arm for Taiwan's economy. Rather than engaging in a war of words, the government and opposition parties should work at fortifying the economy so that Taiwan's competitiveness can grow further and that standards of living may improve.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath