When the government recently decided to allow the market to dictate domestic oil prices, Chinese Petroleum Corp and Formosa Petroleum Corp immediately sought to raise prices. As a result, prices of commodities affected the rise will probably increase as well.
When commenting on this issue last week, Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) pointed out that the Executive Yuan would no longer directly dictate gasoline prices set by the producer, but would instead use a commodity tax and adjustments to the overall economic structure to stabilize commodity prices.
In other words, the government has not renounced intervening in commodity markets, but has simply switched to using external mechanisms to adjust the price.
The point at issue is that the nation's industries depend on foreign supplies of energy and raw materials. Once the government renounces direct measures for setting the price of oil, electricity and water at the source, what "external methods" will remain that will allow it to ease the fluctuations resulting from the operation of a free market mechanism?
For example, the recent rise in crude oil prices has forced up the international price of cane sugar, used to produce spirits and also an alternative energy source. Apart from setting the price directly through Taiwan Sugar Corp, the nation's largest sugar supplier, there is no way for the government to hold down sugar prices. Besides, a "shortage" is the issue and it is this that is plaguing the international energy market.
That is why many countries have listed oil, gas, fresh water, lumber and rare metals as strategic resources. In addition, political disputes such as East Timor's pursuit of independence from Indonesia, the row between China and Japan over the East China Sea and the US-led war in Iraq are all related to each nation's thirst for strategic resources.
Even the root cause of the divide between Islam and the West also has something to do with each side's ambitions to secure strategic energy resources.
Under such circumstances, it is puzzling to see the government taking a regressive approach and allowing market fluctuations to dictate the supply and price of resources, which are monopolistic in nature.
In the past, when Taiwan was developing its export-oriented economy, the government sought to differentiate the price of the resources used by ordinary people from those used by various industries.
The nation's economic resources could therefore be largely allotted to the nation's exporters. This method helped the nation successfully transform itself from an agricultural economy into an industrialized economy.
However, in the 1980s, when other nations began emulating and even catching up with Taiwan, efforts by the government to pursue industrialization began to decline.
Therefore, the nation now needs a fresh strategy in order to break new ground. Based on Taiwan's own history, we can see that direct government intervention certainly has its uses. What Taiwan lacks is a grand energy strategy, and as such is uncertain what kind of intervention might be effective or necessary.
Although the government has little choice but to allow energy prices to rise at the current time, the reason should not be because of a return to a market mechanism. Instead, what the government needs to do is explain what Taiwan's energy strategy is.
Lai Shin-yuan is a Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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