The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), part of the UK-based company that publishes the Economist magazine, released a study on Taiwan two months ago, saying that its financial sector has no future because it has chosen to isolate itself while wasting effort on internal struggles.
In response to the study, I wrote an article in this newspaper ("Economic report misses the target," Aug. 14, page 8) saying that the EIU may be right about Taiwan being in a predicament, but that it had nothing to do with self-isolation.
Rather, Taiwan's problems are a result of Taiwanese firms' cash outflow to China. As the banking industry is tightly linked to local interests, if local enterprises were to reduce their dependence on China and increase their investments at home, domestic demand for capital will rise and help alleviate most of the banking industry's problems.
Three weeks later, a senior finance official related a fable which appeared in the Chinese-language Economic Daily News on Aug. 29 to describe the situation. A scientist tried to train a flea to jump over his finger on command. The flea was able to do so, even after the scientist cut off its forelimbs. However, after all its limbs were cut off, the flea was unable to jump at all, so the scientist concluded that it had become deaf after losing all its limbs.
The finance official then said that Taiwan's hopeless financial industry was like the flea that couldn't "jump" into the future because the government has cut off its limbs through the investment ban, which has gradually cost the financial industry its competitiveness. He also supported the EIU's conclusion, cautioning that people should not misjudge the causes of failure like the scientist.
I like the metaphor, but would interpret this story from another angle.
Taiwan's financial sector -- like the flea -- proved that it could jump during the economic boom in the 1980s. After its fore-limbs were cut off by the outflow of the country's traditional industries in the early 1990s, it was still able to operate even after losing part of its business.
However, after the departure of the high-tech industry, the financial sector suffered because the remaining domestic industries couldn't support it.
In short, the financial sector has no future owing to Taiwanese companies' excessive investment in China, which has not only hollowed out industry but also damaged its competitiveness.
For the financial sector to recover, we need to increase investment in the country to boost the industries that support it, just as a flea can jump only if it has strong and healthy limbs.
Why do two people have such different interpretations of the same story?
It's basically a question of how you look at it. I am viewing this from Taiwan's perspective, while the EIU and its adherents are viewing it from China's perspective -- the so-called "Chinese economic view."
The way China sees it, Taiwan's growing investments are positive and can satisfy its corporate needs. Many people therefore believe that there is no reason for the government to stop them. Even though Taiwan's investment in China is already excessive, they can always find an excuse for why it's good for Taiwan, too.
Viewing the industry exodus from the Taiwanese perspective, however, tells a different story.
People looking at the issue from Taiwan's point of view see the adverse impact of the investment outflow on the domestic economy. They know that the "China fever" favors China, while Taiwan loses its capital and control over its economy, as well as suffers from unemployment and stagnant industrial development.
This is bad for Taiwan's overall condition, so they support necessary restrictions, such as the 40 percent cap on Taiwanese companies' investment in China.
The public's view on financial issues vary as well. Those concerned with China believe that as Taiwanese industries head across the Strait, the only way for the financial sector to survive is to go there as well.
But those who consider Taiwan as part of the global picture are aware of the potential impact on the banking industry should it follow industry's exceesive investment across the Strait.
Does Taiwan's financial sector really have no future, as the EIU claimed?
Thanks to pro-localization academics and the Taiwan Solidarity Union's efforts to block relaxation of the investment ceiling from being discussed at the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development in July, Taiwan now has a future.
Standard Chartered Bank announced on Sept. 29 that it would buy Hsinchu International Bank for NT$40.5 billion (US$1.22 billion). If Taiwan's financial sector has no future, would Standard Chartered dare make such a purchase?
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS