The NT$70-billion special bills hastily drawn up by the Cabinet to combat unemployment hit a snag during a review on the legislative floor. To be fair, the Cabinet must take full responsibility for this.
The plight of the unemployed deserves our sympathy and it is urgent that the unemployment rate be reduced. If the opposition parties had wanted to act irresponsibly, they could have followed the Cabinet's lead -- even to the extent of raising the stakes by shelling out trillions of dollars on a project that lasts several years to eliminate the unemployment problem. So why didn't the opposition act charitably and garner more votes at the same time?
In 2001, the DPP budgeted a NT$16 billion stipend program for senior citizens in a drive to make good on President Chen Shui-bian's (
The bill's crude contents and the procedures adopted by the Cabinet have enabled rational voters to clearly see the ruling party's bad habit -- that it will stop at nothing to attain its end as long as the goal is correct; that it can ignore whether a plan is reasonable as long as it is well-intentioned.
This is the source of chaos that has led to today's economic doldrums and high unemployment. A government notorious for policy flip-flops finds it difficult to win the people's trust and support. Who will believe that the Cabinet's program is not driven by political factors or electoral considerations?
A careful observation into the unemployment-relief proposal raises many questions. If the DPP administration had not sloppily halted major construction projects such as the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, undermining businesses' confidence in the government, the economy and unemployment might be in a less serious condition today.
Since the grave unemployment problem emerged two years ago when the economy took a nosedive, why didn't the government take steps then and put forth pragmatic programs to boost the economy and to combat joblessness? The government could have made a difference when making its budget for this year, but why did it choose to reduce the spending on economic development?
Why doesn't the government make effective use of the NT$20 billion Employment Security Fund? Why doesn't it improve the efficiency of the current construction projects before proposing a NT$50 billion public construction expansion program?
Where is the logic of creating unemployment on the one hand and granting relief funds to combat unemployment on the other? Since the government tried only to bring down this year's unemployment rate to 4.5 percent, what if these people become jobless again next year? Shall we forget about the matter until after the presidential election?
Many belt-tightening measures can expand domestic demand and create employment opportunities without increasing government spending -- for example, opening up direct links with China and allowing Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan.
Why would the government rather lavish money on missiles and warships to benefit other countries?
We still have plenty of monetary sources to cut down unemployment. Why has the NT$12 billion of the Employment Security Fund been left on the back burner?
Since the Cabinet could divert more than NT$30 billion for emergency use after the 921earthquake, why couldn't it do the same from the 2003 budget?
Before taking office, DPP officials said that carrying out reforms to reduce corruption could save up to NT$500 billion. Is floating debt the only way out now?
Some political parties have played the old trick by proposing to amend the Public Debt Law (
Trillions of NT dollars in debt -- ? from the 921 Earthquake Reconstruction Fund, dredging costs for the Keelung River, Financial Restructuring Fund, compensations for agricultural imports and the agricultural development fund, as well as non-business funds worth more than NT$600 billion -- ? has driven up the government debt beyond NT$5 trillion. There won't be a balanced budget in sight within a decade. This hidden worry for long-term economic development is also deemed a warning signal by foreign investors.
To boost its economy, Japan has carried out economic invigoration projects over the past decade, which in the end eroded the public's confidence in the government and resulted in a vicious cycle of economic stagnation. It is distressing to see that Taiwan is repeating its neighbor's mistakes.
We appeal to the government to reduce national defense and diplomatic expenditures and use the money for urgent needs.
In addtion, the government should stop dragging down the nation's economy by incurring more debt.
Yophy Huang is an associate research fellow at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Jackie Lin
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