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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS