Academic concern for the democratization of China seems to have given way to talk about China's rise. Many Chinese and some Taiwanese have told me that the Chinese people are too uneducated, that the economy remains at the level of low to medium development, and that the regional development differences are too great to implement a democratic political system right now.
Some Chinese have told me that the introduction of democracy to China would lead to chaos that would damage economic reform, and that China's current steady economic growth rate is proof that China is developing in the right direction. The Chinese are also using international pro-Chinese media -- including media in Taiwan -- to further strengthen the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party's leadership.
The results of China's economic reform in recent years are commendable, but I have a different view of Beijing's reluctance to pursue political reform.
We all know that India has a functioning multi-party political system. Could it really be that the Chinese are less developed than the Indians, or is that it that China is poorer than India? Both the Chinese people and many in the international media believe, however, that China's competitiveness has continued to develop faster than India's.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear such arguments. Does Beijing's so-called "economic growth rate" really represent overall competitiveness? Does the performance of the few Chinese cities that foreign journalists have visited represent China as a whole?
Let's look at some figures. The recent World Competitiveness Yearbook compiled by the Lausanne, Switzerland-based business school, the Institute for Management Development (IMD), shows that in 2003, India was 21 places behind China, while last year it ranked only 10 places behind China.
In addition, the Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI), released by the World Economic Forum, which predicts a country's competitiveness over the next five to 10 years, put India 12 places behind China in 2003 but predicted it would overtake China by 11 places last year. It should be noted that the GCI adjusted its formula last year, but not in a way that would affect India's lead over China.
The Corruption Perception Index, released by the Germany-based Transparency International, placed India 17 places behind China in 2003 but ranked it the same as China, in 70th place, last year.
According to the German Bertelsmann Transformation Index, a global ranking that analyzes and evaluates political and economic transformation in 119 countries, India led China by 48 places in 2003, a lead that had increased to 61 places by last year. In terms of political performance, India had also left China far behind, leading by 38 places.
The global press freedom index, released by the Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders, placed India 33 places ahead of China in 2003 and 58 places ahead last year.
These statistics refute the argument that China is rapidly leaving India behind and show that the opposite is in fact true. If China cannot conduct a future overhaul of its political system, Taiwan, whose businesspeople currently focus on China, will be the first to be affected.
It is also worth noting that Japan for the first time last year overtook Taiwan in the competitiveness indexes released by the IMD and the World Economic Forum. Japan greatly reduced its China-bound investment and increased its India-bound investment last year. Shouldn't this be a warning signal to Taiwan?
David Su is a doctoral student in the department of economics at the University of Rhode Island. 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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry