Two weeks have passed since President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) introduced the "active management, effective opening" policy in his New Year's address. Despite this, the agencies in charge of economic policy still do not seem to be able to propose concrete and effective proposals to implement the policy. During a question-and-answer session in the legislature, representatives of these agencies merely offered three major directions.
First, when China-based Taiwanese businesspeople apply for permission to invest in China, they will be required to submit an analysis of their global operations. Second, timely briefings will have to be submitted for investments of more than a certain amount and disputes must be reviewed by international accountants. Third, fines will be increased to deter illegal investment in China.
If these three measures are meant as an implementation of Chen's "active management" policy, we can only say that they are neither very innovative nor very active. They will only lead to complaints from the public, have a negative impact on the welfare of workers and in the end will not achieve what they were intended to accomplish.
The first requirement already exists, and has more or less deteriorated into a creative writing competition. The second, timely reporting, is a fundamental requirement in securities management. Even if a few measures are added, the reliability of these reports is still dubious. The costs of hiring international accountants will be cut by the China-friendly pan-blue camp. Meanwhile, Taiwanese businesspeople will establish contacts with Beijing in an attempt to cause problems for the accounting firms and force them to cooperate or back down.
The third point involves making changes to the Statute Governing the Relations Between the People of the Taiwan and the Mainland Area (
The three measures are therefore superficial and unrealistic. They are an evasive maneuver, rather than something that shows a will to implement changes. In the end, the pan-blue camp's remarks that "you cannot control cross-strait trade even if you try" will come true, and Chen will be blamed for the failure.
In connection to this, National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) pointed out a few days ago that the government's handling of the issue in the past has followed the logic that "market rules do not require managing," and as a result, government agencies have not proposed management measures.
This is a dangerous situation, and saying that there has been no management because market rules are in place is only an excuse. The council may be guilty of dereliction of duty for not having uttered a word about this over the past five years and for not proposing measures to deal with the issue.
But their willingness to stand up now against the government makes us look at them through new eyes. The nation will soon get a new premier and hopefully this will mean that past errors will be corrected -- and that the new government will come up with the innovative and effective measures needed for the "active management" policy.
We believe that an effective "active management" must include the following, at minimum. First, the investment review must incorporate the principle of prioritizing investments in Taiwan. A manufacturer's investments in Taiwan over the past three years must significantly exceed its investments in China. If the public wants companies to be based in Taiwan, then the public is certain to support this, which will make implementation easy and simple.
Second, investment in Taiwan-based research, development and upgrading must be made two important criteria for approving applications to invest in China. Manufacturers that have not upgraded their operations in Taiwan must temporarily put their investments in China on hold. This demand is absolutely certain to facilitate the upgrading of Taiwan's industry.
Third, all or part of the preferential tax treatment firms receive should be terminated for every manufacturer whose production in China exceeds a certain proportion of the value of its production in Taiwan. The resulting increase in tax income should be diverted to the improvement of the domestic investment environment in order to reward manufacturers that prioritize their investment in Taiwan.
Last year, the nation's overseas production reached 30 percent of overall production. Ninety percent of that production was in China. Accumulated investment in China by Taiwanese businesses is not US$46.8 billion as the Ministry of Economic Affairs claims, but US$280 billion. If the government still treats China as it does the US or Japan or other friendly nations and blindly relies on free-market principles to regulate that relationship -- while continuing to ignore Chen's instructions in the same way as before -- Taiwan will face an unavoidable crisis.
The new Cabinet's ability to make timely adjustments to its approach to managing China-bound investment will be critical in determining whether Taiwan's de facto independence can continue. The nation has no time to waste, and we hope the new Cabinet will direct all its efforts toward developing the economy and creating a sustainable existence for Taiwan.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS