Two contrasting news items were reported on Monday last week. First, the government vowed to double Taiwan's per capita GDP to US$32,000 by 2015. The second news story said that the average salary in Taiwan has dropped over the past five years, regardless of employee educational levels. The latter serves as a negative footnote to the former.
Taiwan's economy has grown over the past five years, so why have average employee salaries dropped rather than increased? Obviously, all the benefits of Taiwan's economic development over the past five years have gone to business.
The reason for this is either a decrease in the demand for labor or an increase in the labor supply. Judging from the salary cutbacks, I am sure that it is the result of a falling demand for labor, caused by insufficient domestic investment. According to investment statistics, the lack of domestic investment is mainly caused by Taiwan's excessive investment in China.
If Chinese investment really is as complementary and beneficial to Taiwan's economic growth as those who advocate "actively going west" claim, then such investment should improve and upgrade Taiwan, and not result in the country's economy being undermined; nor should it replace Taiwan's salaried classes, but rather boost the demand for labor and bring about salary increases. Indeed, falling salaries in the face of economic growth is indirect evidence that excessive investment in China is bad for the nation's economy.
Several issues regarding the government's pledge to double Taiwan's GDP in 10 years also require clarification.
To begin with, doubling GDP does not automatically translate into doubling employee salaries. Whether salaries increase will depend on the policies used to advance the government's pledge. If the nation's economic policies from the past few years remain unchanged, with merely formal restrictions on China-bound investment and a tax system that encourages the outflow of capital, then the salaried classes might be further disadvantaged even if the goal of doubling Taiwan's GDP is achieved.
Further, the government's forecasts are calculated in US dollars. If the US maintains an annual inflation rate of 7 percent, then the US dollar will depreciate by the same amount, 7 percent, yearly.
In other words, even if Taiwan's real economic growth in dollar terms remains at zero over the next 10 years, the government can still reach its goal.
Finally, the government should amend its statistical methods and definitions in conjunction with its GDP goal.
The salaried classes, farmers and small vendors account for a major portion of Taiwan's total population. Since the incomes and expenses of salaried households are closely related to the incomes of farmers and vendors, one could say that the interests of the salaried households are also the interests of the people of Taiwan.
The goals of doubling GDP per capita and doubling salaries require very different economic policies. If a consensus on increasing the percentage of capital that a company is allowed to invest in China is reached at the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development, then the future of the salaried class will look even bleaker.
In the interests of the majority of Taiwanese, even a pledge to increase salaries by half is much more meaningful than a pledge to double the nation's GDP.
Lin Chia is an independent economics commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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