According to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, the inequality in income among different regions in Taiwan has widened over the past five years. The average annual disposable household income in Taipei, reportedly calculated at NT$1.24 million (US$37,479), far exceeds that of Taitung County, which stands at NT$597,000. Five years ago, the gap between these two regions was NT$596,000. It has now increased to NT$643,000.
Sixteen out of the 23 counties in this county have reported a decline in their average household disposable income, with Hualien County the worst, falling by NT$80,000 to NT$663,000. In March, to make sure its 3,000 elementary students could drink milk twice a week, the Taitung County Government had to turn to the China Development Financial Holding Corp for help. Meanwhile, some parents in Taipei worried over whether or not their children would eat imported foods.
Most believe that in this increasingly globalized world, the income gap between those who have and those who don't have access to information will continue to widen. However, the number of people living in abject poverty has fallen drastically worldwide over the past decade or so. Taiwan is an anomaly because its impoverished population has increased.
According to World Bank statistics, the number of people who subsist on US$1 per day worldwide fell to 1.02 billion people in 2002 from 1.48 billion people in 1981. More than 460 million have climbed out of abject poverty over the past 21 years. The numbers of impoverished, however, has grown in Europe, Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
China's and the rest of the world's impoverished populations seem to have fallen at almost the same speed. China's impoverished population dropped to 180 million people in 2002 from 380 million in 1990 and 630 million in 1981. If China's poor population hadn't dropped, the rest of the world's poor population would have remained practically unchanged. The global impoverished population has dropped drastically to 19.4 percent of the world's population in 2002 from 27.9 percent in 1990 and 40.4 percent in 1981, a remarkable achievement.
The reasons certain countries or regions have yet to come up with solutions to their poverty issues are related to rampant government corruption and war. Taiwan, however, certainly does not face those problems, and yet the number of low-income households in this country has grown over the past few years.
It is worrying that the disposable household income has fallen in 13 counties in Taiwan.The nation's rankings have fallen in the latest World Bank report on governance indicators. Last year, Taiwan was ranked 60th overall, down from 31st in the 1998 survey. Of six governance indicators, Taiwan's "control of corruption," "political stability and absence of violence" and "government effectiveness" have all plummeted, its "rule of law" and "regulatory quality" dropped slightly and only its "voice and accountability" were unchanged.
Some believe that the inequitable distribution of household income in Taiwan results from an increasingly globalized economy. Yet with the exception of a number of underdeveloped countries, most countries in the world have made progress in their efforts to eliminate poverty.
Seeing disposable household income continue to drop, I cannot but wonder if the government is no longer capable of managing the country. It is clear that few pay attention to the inappropriate use of administrative resources in each county and city. Constant Cabinet reshuffles have also stymied government operations. Thus, it seems we are on our way to another "Taiwanese miracle."
Tu Jenn-hwa is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of National Development of National Taiwan University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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.
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