Credit cards are relatively new in Taiwan. Thus, for many -- particularly the naive and inexperienced -- the ability to buy now and pay later is an attractive temptation.
The slow but steady accumulation of debt goes unnoticed amidst the immediate gratification of being able to enjoy consumable items. Eventually, of course, reality sets in and the piper must be paid.
That same naivete or expectation that the bill can always be passed on is evident in discussions on cross-strait relations. A friend recently made the comment: "Don't you think Taiwan would be stronger if we decided to join China? Think of all the jobs in Shanghai."
But everything has its price tag. The bullying threat of China's missiles coupled with the vision of a booming Shanghai seems to be like the offer of an unlimited credit card.
But, however rich Shanghai may appear and whatever opportunities it offers, it all comes at a price.
What price? I won't discuss the obvious and real loss of the values of democracy, a free press, freedom of speech, movement and religion.
These can be summed up with the saying, "You don't know what you've got until it's gone."
No, I want to simply look at more practical matters that touch the pocket book.
I will examine three in particular: the quality of health care, the quality of the environment and the most efficient use of tax dollars.
Overall, the quality of Taiwan's health care is excellent. Over 94 percent of the population is covered under the Bureau of National Health Insurance's (BNHI) scheme and costs are minimal compared to the US and most other countries.
So inexpensive is healthcare here that many Taiwanese living in the US readily bear the cost of a flight back to Taiwan to enjoy the inexpensive hospital costs.
With a growing budget deficit, the BNHI has reduced the number of reimbursable drugs covered under its plan.
The general populace naturally complained. But in actuality the cost per doctor's visit and prescription has only gone up by about US$5.
This is not an extreme burden but think of the costs if Taiwan had to share the gargantuan burden of providing the same standard of healthcare to the 1.3 billion people in China.
Second is environment. The quality of Taiwan's environment is far below the quality of its healthcare.
There is much to be done, and the cost of that will be high. Nevertheless there have been successes such as cleaning up Ai River in Kaohsiung. Look, however, across the Strait. Many of the world's most polluted cities are in China; likewise polluted rivers are in such abundance that even good drinking water is scarce.
If Taiwan finds it hard to put its money into cleaning up its own environmental problems, do the unificationists think they will get a free pass on the burden of cleaning up pollution in China? Who will pay the bill?
A third area is the effective use of tax dollars for the greater benefit of the country. Taiwan's education system is good but in need of continuous upgrading and improvement.
The chance to attend a university is becoming more and more available. When once there were only enough openings for less than 30 percent of the students who took the Joint Entrance Exam, now over 90 percent can find places.
In China a billion people do not have access to higher education. Who will foot that bill?
As for military expenditures, in Taiwan, the pan-blue dominated legislature has consistently rejected an arms bill on the grounds that such money should be used for more appropriate local projects.
Yet these same unificationists ironically promote joining a country that spends billions on its military (including the 700-plus missiles that it aims at Taiwan). Does the pan-blue camp think that Taiwan's taxpayers will get a free pass on the burden of that military buildup? Who will pay the bill?
Does anyone care to speculate on who would be sucked dry if a small prosperous country the size of Taiwan were taken over by a giant the size of China?
In the early 1990s, it became permissible and fashionable for Taiwanese nationals to go to China to visit family members. Many who took advantage of this returned to Taiwan disillusioned. They were welcomed in China, but soon they were besieged by the grasping hands of cousins they never imagined they had, all expecting gifts.
Put simply, if Taiwan faced a takeover by China (hostile or otherwise), whose pocket do you think the over 1 billion grasping hands would be reaching into?
Businessmen of course look only at immediate personal profit, and pan-blue unificationists wonder how they can profit from the takeover. But the bills will still have to be paid. They will mount with interest and always be passed on to the common man.
Credit-card companies offer free gifts to entice customers into their money pit. Once in, the naive find they struggle to make the monthly payments. High interest rates continue and the bills keep mounting.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
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