Foreign businesspeople often threaten the government by saying that they will pack up and leave unless direct transportation links across the Taiwan Strait are established. But foreign investors set a new record last year by making net investments of NT$719.4 billion (US$22.35 billion) in the nation's stock market.
Although the market didn't meet the expectations of foreign investors, offering them barely satisfactory returns on their investments, Taiwan's stock index, the TAIEX, did rise by 408 points, or 6.65 percent, last year.
Many people give foreign investors credit for this result. But over the past year, the government has refused to yield to pressure from the pan-blue camp and foreign investors, nor has it yielded to China on the trade issue. That is the main reason the stock market saw a small increase.
Pan-blue leaders have joined hands with foreign investors to put pressure on the government, demanding immediate cross-strait flights and permission to set up chipmaking and other plants in China. Fortunately, the government has continued its efforts to prevent Taiwanese industry from becoming further undermined.
This persistence has finally paid off. The economy took off in the last quarter of last year, with growth estimated at 5.28 percent, while unemployment fell to 3.94 percent -- the lowest figure in five years. Foreign investors pumped more than NT$700 billion into Taiwan. Companies which have kept their main production lines in Taiwan, in line with the "no haste, be patient" policy, remain valuable investment targets.
This is proven by the fact that foreign investors made net investments in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp, United Microelectronics Corp and AU Optronics last month. These companies have invested heavily in Taiwan, accumulated advanced technologies, increased their international competitiveness and attracted foreign investment, which has pushed up the TAIEX.
Many disagree with this argument. They say that it is because the government relies on ideology to govern the nation that the TAIEX's performance last year lagged far behind South Korea's and Japan's stock markets -- which rose by 53 percent and 42 percent. They believe that if direct cross-strait transportation was allowed and if regulations on investing in China were relaxed, the stock market would have grown by much more than 6.65 percent last year. This is an idea held by all pan-blue media outlets and academics who put "China" at the core of their thinking.
But it is diametrically opposed to thinking which centers on Taiwan. After President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said in April last year that without effective management, he would rather not have any opening, the ban on companies investing more than 40 percent of their net value in China has not been relaxed, there has been no response to the issue of advanced wafer foundries and packaging and testing plants moving to China, and direct transportation links still have not materialized. As a result, the fourth quarter last year still saw stable growth of 5.2 percent.
That reality indicates that effective management is the right course of action.
We could even say that if there had been no active opening in 2001, the TAIEX would have outperformed the South Korean and Japanese stock markets, while foreign investors would have made huge profits.
The president's New Year's speech should be welcomed for its insistence that cross-strait trade will be more actively managed. As long as the government persists in this correct direction, Taiwan's stock market will continue to shine.
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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.
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