Addressing the nation's economic woes, participants in the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development engaged in heated debate Thursday and Friday. The conference came at the end of several months of committee work which was also sharply divided. All told, the conference process displayed a national elite sharply divided on the nation's economic future.
Taiwan Solidarity Union lawmakers, who walked out of the session on Friday afternoon, described the conference as a "big hoax" -- a show staged for corporate Taiwan to push forward its agenda for cross-strait liberalization, with the Cabinet playing second fiddle. Businesspeople weren't happy with the conference either, and said that the event had been a failure as it didn't address their primary concerns nor reach agreement on measures to allow more economic exchanges with China.
But what did people expect would happen? Did they really believe that simply bringing together the 190 or so participants -- which included representatives of political parties, the business community, academics and environmental activists who have never agreed with each other before -- would magically generate a useful list of medium and long-term goals for the economy? Could these people do any better in a two-day meeting, which covered a vast array of controversial policy options, than our elected representatives have over years of legislative debate and brawling?
While the conference was initially proposed to collect ideas on how to deal with the nation's long-term, structural and contentious economic problems, it actually turned out to be a "mega gathering" of economic interests with a variety of conflicting views on investment, trade and cross-strait matters. Not surprisingly, the conference appeared about as polarized as the Legislative Yuan.
Virtually no one needed to be persuaded that Taiwan's economy is overly dependent on the Chinese market, a situation which is neither reliable nor sustainable. Everyone accepted that the Chinese market is only part of the global economy, not the center of it. At the same time, participants agreed that the future of Taiwan's industrial and national competitiveness resides in our own technological upgrading and industrial transformation, not solely on China's growth.
There was also no dissent that an outdated limit on China-bound investment should be fixed, but that the policy should be adjusted carefully and with due attention to the downside risk. An immediate and complete liberalization of cross-strait ties that would put Taiwan's national security in jeopardy was never up for debate. Similarly, participants universally agreed that government deficits have risen too high too fast and that something needs to be done to reduce the debt.
One other agreement on process was particularly instructive: Conference participants resolved that the best solution to their divergent views was to put a total of 166 contentious suggestions on the conclusion list under the category of "other opinions." This meant that while they couldn't directly agree on some issues, they wanted the opinions used as a reference point in future policy development.
So if there was a message from the conference, it was not about how participants performed or the final outcome. It was also not about the perception that the conference participants were avoiding tough decisions. The message was that people want those who rule this country to make the economic policy decisions that need to be made.
The government may be trumpeting the achievement of reaching consensus on a total of 516 opinions in the conference, but make no mistake -- these were "motherhood" opinions opposed by no one. The government now needs to carefully look into the suggestions under the "other opinions" list -- which is the true challenge presented by the conference.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with