Taiwan has assumed that technology is the driving force behind its much-vaunted "knowledge-based economy" (
For example, in the initial stage of the Industrial Revolution in the 17th century, intellectual property rights were a significant breakthrough in the role knowledge played. An invention was no longer solely controlled by political or business interests as it had gained a status protected by law.
Both the US and Japan enjoyed economic takeoffs in the late 19th and mid-20th centuries respectively, because of the implementation of intellectual property rights. The two nations' acceptance of these rights not only changed the law, it also changed their respective cultures.
Today's knowledge revolution, based on information technology, can actually be traced back to the US' Great Depression. Before then, the US economy was similar to Taiwan's current economy in that it suffered from government interference in the financial market, the entangled relations between banks and enterprises, and even political corruption. The depression, however, served as a great lesson for the US, forcing it to thoroughly review the fundamental values of its economic system.
For example, what should the relationship between the government and business be? Upon reflection it became clear that information may become an invisible hand in the financial market. Many financial reform bills, therefore, all focused on bringing information to light.
Also important, the US decision makers thought of another issue: Is economic development supposed to create a better society or is it just for making money? This question later led to the establishment of the social welfare system. Such economic and social reforms transformed the country. The US began using information as its material, scientific thinking as its tool, and fairness and justice as its values.
The depression had even further influences. After the 1930s, the family structure started to change and the social system began transforming as the traditional authoritative culture -- centered around wealthy white males -- started to decline. The civil rights movement, women's rights movement and even consumers' movements took hold.
Because of these movements, the sources of traditional authority were all replaced -- mostly with knowledge. Although the change was slow, it was a crucial one. More fortunately, the birth of computers in the 1950s allowed information technology to be applied to the construction of a new social system. From this perspective, social and cultural reforms are the real driving forces of a knowledge-based society. Information technology, on the other hand, is supplementary to a variety of systemic reforms.
In today's knowledge-based society, not only the usage of technology is different from the past, its fundamental values have also changed. For example, in Kenneth Hey and Peter Moore's book, The Caterpillar Doesn't Know, the two authors point out that the US has gradually transformed from "communities of wealth" to "communities of meaning."
Facing Taiwan's current economic predicament, talk of a knowledge-based economy has been predominant while technology has widely been seen as a "cure-all." But has Taiwanese culture evolved to such a degree that it is ready to pursue a knowledge-based economy? The US has experienced a number of social crises that have consequently changed its authoritative culture. Can Taiwan, after only a few decades of democratic reforms, rid itself of the thousands of years of autocratic and dictatorial culture? In today's Taiwan, everyone who has a vested interest wants to compel others to accept their ideas, which means that the traditional perspectives of authority remain firm. Why bother to talk about a knowledge-based economy under such circumstances?
What Taiwan needs the most right now is to restructure not only economic policies but also social policies as well. Only by doing both can a truly knowledgeable society be built.
Bob Kuo is a professor of information systems at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Eddy Chang.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with