Some participants AT the recent Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development made an all-out effort to promote investment in China. In their view, Taiwan has no future unless it develops a close-knit economic relationship with its neighbor. This is a grave mistake. If Taiwan wants its economy to develop sustainably, how can it pin its hopes on an unsustainable economic entity such as China?
China's economic situation seems rosy, with growth rates at 9 percent to 10 percent, but there are many underlying problems that are both serious and unsolvable. When China's economy collapses one day, no one will ask why because the number of factors that could cause such a collapse is overwhelming.
China's economic problems are systemic. Simply put, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ruled for more than 50 years: half the time through a communist system, and half the time through reform and deregulation. This has not, however, changed the CCP, and China's economy is still a communist economic system.
Communism's collapse in the Soviet Union and then Eastern Europe was the last nail in the coffin for the idea that a strong economy can develop in a communist country. Since China still has a communist economy, it will never be able to achieve sustainable economic development.
Why would I say that China hasn't changed? First, we must ask what the CCP is. In simple terms, the fundamental nature of the party is "lies and violence." This has been true since the day it was founded.
But why do I also say that China's economic system hasn't changed? Generally, economic systems are defined by private property rights and economic decision-making rights. Economic decision-making refers to the question of who makes decisions regarding production -- or work -- and consumption. In a capitalist system there are private property rights, and production and consumption is determined by the market. In a communist system, there are no private property rights, and the state decides about work and consumption for every individual.
After its reforms and opening, China has developed what seems to be commercial housing, self-employed households have developed into private enterprises, and food and clothing ration coupons are no longer used. It would appear to be a capitalist market economy.
But when China demanded that every nation recognize that it is a market economy under the WTO framework, the EU, the US and Japan were unwilling to do so. Why? Because Chinese farmers' land, urban housing, and the capital and operational rights of private enterprises are not guaranteed, and can be taken away by the CCP at any time. What kind of market economy is that?
In fact, the sale of farmers' land, the demolition of old urban housing and forced relocation are no longer news. China has said that there were more than 87,000 collective protests last year, an average of 238 per day, most of which were sparked by complaints over land sales and renovation projects. Because these problems cannot be properly resolved at the local level, many people have gathered in Beijing to file complaints, to the point that there is now a "complaint village" there.
The problem with the lack of guarantees for business investments may not be as well known because it doesn't attract as much media attention. One good example of this is an incident that occurred in the northern part of Shaanxi Province. The local government in this oil-producing region signed an agreement with residents to allow people to invest in oil-field development. Before long, however, the government appropriated the oil fields, paying very low compensation.
This single incident cost investors 7 billion yuan (US$876.8 million) and assets worth more than 14 billion yuan. The number of investors directly affected exceeded 60,000, and more than 100,000 were indirectly affected.
The seriousness of the frequent trampling on business rights can be clearly seen from the problems suffered by Taiwanese tycoons Wang Yung-ching (王永慶) -- who has tried to build a power plant in Zhangzhou, Fujian Province -- and Hsu Wen-lung, as well as former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's (李光耀) Suzhou Industrial Park. If China is not afraid of bullying people at this level, imagine how they treat the average person.
China under the CCP's rule still has a communist economy led by a government with unlimited powers. This can never lead to sustainable development.
If we want to see sustainable development in Taiwan, how can we depend on an economic entity that will one day collapse?
Chang Ching-hsi is a professor in the department of economics at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
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
The victory of Vice President William Lai (賴清德) in January’s presidential election raised questions about the future of China’s unification strategy toward Taiwan. A decade ago, the assumption in Bejing had been that deepening economic ties with Taiwan would bring about a political accommodation eventually leading to political integration. Not only has this not happened, but it hastened the opposite. Taiwanese are more concerned with safeguarding their political independence than they have ever been. China’s preferred party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has not won a presidential election since 2012. Clearly, Beijing’s strategy is not working. Polling conducted by the Institute of European