In response to the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration's economic policies, the pan-blue camp is once again using the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) to attack the present with the past.
At a seminar on Taiwan's economic development under Chiang, attendees, including KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and former vice premier Hsu Li-teh (徐立德), contrasted the financial policies and economic development of Chiang's rule with those of Chen's. They highlighted problems facing the administration such as enormous budget deficits, high unemployment rates, the growing gap between the rich and the poor and rough planning on public investment.
Statistics quoted by these "Chiang School graduates" showed that the economy under Chiang performed better than in recent years. Those who fondly remember Chiang's time seem to believe that economic development is a process composed of pieces irrelevant to one another. To them, even the state of the global economy is a secondary factor. Most interesting of all, when they tried to delineate the stages of Taiwan's economic development, they divided it by political leaders' terms of office.
Textbooks say the important stages in Taiwan's post-war economic development were land reform, import and export substitution, liberalization and internationalization. Liberalization and internalization started in the 1980s during Chiang's term.
At that time, Taiwan had a trade surplus with the US, China started to open its market and the triangular relationship between China, the US and Russia was changing. Following Chiang's death, the Cold War ended and the global economy was reshaped, thus speeding up the process of globalization. These continuous developments cannot be simply divided by certain people's terms of office.
It is embarrassing for the KMT to talk about the economic achievements under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). After all, shouldn't former premier Hau Pei-tsun (
There is certainly a standard we can employ to scrutinize the Chen administration's financial policies and the corruption in the Lee era. Yet we cannot measure their performance based on development during the Chiang era. The "10 Major Construction Projects" in the 1970s did not face the problems of land acquisition that similar projects have today. The drastic measures Chiang adopted to end a run on the Taipei Tenth Credit Cooperative in 1985 are simply unavailable to Chen.
Besides, was Chiang all that efficient? Nine months before his death, during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting in early April 1987, Chiang announced the tax on slaughter houses would be abolished. He said that he had wanted to do it since he was Gan County commissioner in Jiangxi Province. He proposed the same plan when he was premier but it did not pass because of local financing constraints. So he was more than happy that 40 years later his dream finally came true.
The story was once presented as Chiang being understanding and compassionate about the people's plight. But shockingly, abolishing a tax that was not of much use earned a place in the agenda of the ruling party's central standing committee. In addition, despite knowing it was a bad tax, Chiang was not able to change it for more than 40 years.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY JENNIE SHIH
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