When it was in power, the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) financial and economic brainstrust basically came from the Industrial Development Bureau (IDB, 工業局) and the Bureau of Foreign Trade (BOFT, 國際貿易局).
Prior to the 1980s, those who dictated policy included former finance minister Lee Kuo-ting (李國鼎) and former premier Sun Yun-suan (孫運璿), both of whom started out as engineers. They focused much of their attention on the nation's manufacturing industry.
In the 1990s, after trade in manufacture had taken off, foreign trade officials from the BOFT basically took charge of financial and economic policy.
Faced with the issue of industrial transformation, the nation's foreign trade officials tended to adopt a defeatist approach toward the possibility of keeping the manufacturing sector in Taiwan. That is why former KMT premier Vincent Siew's (蕭萬長) earliest plans for an Asia-Pacific logistics hub in the country did not include the manufacturing sector.
Nor did the original idea behind his "green value-added island" concept -- aimed at making the country a hub for global value-added services -- proposed at last month's Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development include the manufacturing sector: Its vision was to transform Taiwan from a manufacturing center into a center for all sorts of services. Both these ideas follow the development patterns of Singapore and Hong Kong.
Siew's plan to make Taiwan into a "value-added island" is intended to connect the country to the rest of the world.
To accomplish this, the plan says, the country has to learn from Ireland, Finland and the Netherlands.
The only thing that these three European countries have in common with Taiwan is that they are all small countries, but the population of each of the three nations is smaller than that of Taiwan.
Although these three countries have fared very well on the economic front in recent years, they do not have anything in common in terms of economic development models.
Finland's economy depends largely on Nokia, the world's leading mobile phone supplier. This is probably a very difficult model to emulate and, in particular, there is nothing to learn in terms of value-added services, which lies at the core of Siew's proposal.
In comparison, the Netherlands' overall industrial development is more balanced, and it is fairly advanced in the agricul-tural, biotech, technology and services sectors.
However, the Netherlands' technology, agriculture and biotech sectors are focused on cutting edge innovation and not value-added services at all.
When it comes to its service sector, the Netherlands has the same kind of irreplaceable geographical advantage as Hong Kong, and that isn't really something that can be readily applied here either.
Both Finland and the Netherlands have international brands that are being sold all over the world, and they are indeed integrated into the global economy. However, Finland only relies on Nokia for that connection, and that link doesn't measure up to Taiwan's many and varied firms that have a global reach.
Emulating Ireland sounds even stranger, since that country has no advanced multinational corporations of its own.
On the contrary, foreign multinationals are setting up factories in Ireland for original equipment manufacturing (OEM) of biotech products as well as computer hardware and software.
In other words, Ireland is merely passively connected to the world by international companies rather than by itself -- is this the sort of economic model Taiwan wants to emulate?
Although Ireland's economy is performing well at the moment, it is identical to Taiwan's experience in the 1970s and 1980s on the back of tax exemptions. The rapid economic growth is a function of late takeoff.
Today, in terms of its IT, hardware and software industries, Ireland's manufacturing industry is probably on a par with China -- by supplying labor to multinational corporations producing OEM products, its industries basically have the status of an employee.
Although Taiwan was also an OEM specialist at the end of last century, it is no longer employed by other countries. Aside from manufacturing, it has formed partnerships with other multinational corporations.
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co and Quanta Computer Inc are cases in point. Giant Inc, the country's largest bicycle manufacturer, has not only linked itself to the world, but is also operating on an international basis.
Since Taiwan has already entered the phase of innovation and brand marketing, it is strange to think that it should feel inferior to Ireland and look to Ireland to learn how to connect itself to the world.
However, saying that Taiwan has nothing to learn from Ireland is an overstatement. For example, Ireland has a more liberal economic system and a more advanced education system, and these have encouraged multinational corporations to set up factories and employ Irish workers.
But it is debatable if this should be termed "connecting to the world." Maybe the only area where it is better connected to the world than Taiwan is the English language.
I wonder why the government paid so much attention to Siew's strange proposition at the recent conference and why it has decided to implement it. In the 1990s, Siew's attempt to emulate Hong Hong failed. Will his current proposal be any more successful?
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US