Following the declaration of the so-called "battle to defend the localized regime" by those opposing the recall of President Chen Shui-bian (
The question is, where exactly does it want to go? Where does it want to take Taiwan, and more specifically, the Taiwanese economy, which it neglected to mention in its promise?
Figures show that over the last five years, the average salary of Taiwanese employees has fallen across the board, regardless of whether they are college graduates, high school graduates or lower. Yet the economic setbacks endured by the working class and farmers contrasts with the reality that the economy has been experiencing positive growth almost every year.
From this one can infer that most of the benefits from the growth are going into the pockets of the upper class.
Some people blame globalization for the way the rich have been able to monopolize the earnings from economic growth. However, this is incorrect. Globalization does not necessarily mean that greater profits for the upper class must come at the expense of the working class. Under proper conditions, both the upper and working classes should see their lot improve.
This is, in fact, the foundation of the economic theory behind globalization. Even with the heavily criticized trend towards wage inequality experienced in the US, only those without a high school education have seen their wages stall due to the shrinking of the manufacturing industry, outsourcing and the replacement of workers with automated systems.
Economic theory dictates that the higher a country's GDP, the more its middle class should be affected by globalization. Taiwan has only a moderately sized GDP, so globalization's influence on its working class should be small. Therefore, the government should bear the heaviest responsibility for the drop in wages.
Most Taiwanese citizens, including working-class families, farmers and small businesses, work in the private sector. These are also the main supporters of the pan-green camp. Working class family incomes and expenses are closely related to the incomes of farmers and small businesses. Therefore, one can say that the interests of Taiwan's working-class families are the interests of all Taiwanese, of Taiwan and of the DPP. Consequently, if pro-localization supporters see their economic position eroded, it will also signal a decline in the value of Taiwan itself, and the DPP government will be more vulnerable.
As today's DPP tries once again to build consensus between itself and the government, it barely resembles the DPP of the 2001 National Convention, which passed a resolution regarding the nation's economic development. Nor has it made any appraisal of Taiwan's economic performance during its six years in power.
For Taiwan and pro-localization supporters, as well as for its own future, the DPP has a responsibility to ask itself: "Why have Taiwanese working-class families of all educational backgrounds seen their wages decrease? Why has Taiwan's labor market been unable to support higher wages?"
Following the economic difficulties experienced by supporters of Taiwan and the "battle to defend the localized regime" that they have initiated, the DPP has a responsibility to face these questions.
It has a duty to make a candid analysis of the drop in wages, and formulate economic policies for the betterment of the nation.
Lin Chia is an independent economics commentator.
Translated by Marc Langer
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers