Sales of the central bank's certificates of deposit have never been so crucial to the nation's banking system as they are now.
Recently this has become a key issue in draining excess liquidity from the banking system to help stem inflation.
Normally, the central bank has sold 30-day, 91-day and 182-day certificates of deposit and negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs) each day from Monday to Friday to help control short-term liquidity on the local money market.
On July 11, the central bank absorbed NT$73 billion in one-year redeposits from four state-run banks to help reduce excess funds in the banking system, only a week after it sold NT$98.17 billion (US$2.99 billion) in 364-day certificates of deposit and NCDs on July 4.
Last Thursday, however, the bank announced unexpectedly that it would double the size of 364-day certificates of deposit and NCDs for Friday's auction to NT$100 billion.
In a statement issued later the same day, the bank hinted it might move forward the date of its quarterly board meeting to handle changing conditions, indicating possible interest rate hikes.
Raising interest rates again? Not a big surprise. Most economists and fund managers anticipated that the central bank would raise rates again during its board meeting in September to continue narrowing the gap between the nation's borrowing costs and those of other countries.
Hinting at an extraordinary board meeting to review the effectiveness of monetary tools shows that the central bank senses the pressure at a time when high fuel costs and prices of wholesale raw materials have sparked concern that the situation could deteriorate into overall inflation.
In theory, raising interest rates will curb inflation and support the value of the NT dollar. Without doing so, funds will be drawn to push up the prices of local real estate, stocks and other assets. But the government needs to do more on this front, other than raising interest rates and supporting local currency.
The government must carefully analyze the causes of today's price problems without panicking and implementing measures in haste.
The government should examine whether the problem is restricted to certain sectors or has expanded to affect the economy as a whole. It must also look into whether the situation is being fueled by rising price levels for manufactured goods or by surging demand for primary commodities such as oil, metals and grains.
Developing a viable solution for a price spiral requires a clear understanding of whether the problem is produced domestically or is the result of international factors such as an unstable world market and rising inflation in other countries.
If the problem can be traced to hoarding by importers, the Fair Trade Commission and other government agencies must take measures to punish them and prevent further hoarding and abnormal price fluctuations.
But if the problem is caused by instabilities in the global market, such as recent problems with grain commodities and crude oil, calling for the government to provide price subsidies will only ease growing public anger in the short term.
In the long run it will distort market mechanisms and hurt the economy.
Whatever measures the government takes, both it and the public should realize that there is no cure-all for a complex problem related to many local and international factors.
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