With its democratic transition, the nation has written a new page in its history and its deepened democracy has become a key asset when dealing with the international community. However, globalization means that developing democracy, bringing wealth and happiness to the public and building a fair and just society will be a challenge.
During campaigning ahead of the presidential election, relaxed economic policies, market deregulation, Keynesian infrastructure projects and an efficient, clean and capable government were the hopes of the mainstream public. This shows that the nation is moving toward neoliberalism. However, we should not ignore the contradictions and problems behind neoliberalism, but rather proceed with caution.
Relaxing policies and deregulating markets will allow people, goods and information to circulate more freely, so the nation should prepare for the risks such mobility creates. Economically, the opening should benefit local industry, not foreign capital. Socially, local labor should not be sacrificed for the sake of the market economy. The conflict between policy relaxation and labor interests is a dilemma. China and South Korea have sacrificed labor rights by relaxing policies to attract foreign capital, which is a kind of social time bomb. Taiwan should recognize and deal carefully with these contradictions and understand that the labor force in a democratic society is the foundation of a sustainable economy.
In terms of social balance, market deregulation will bring prosperity and growth to some places, but imbalances will grow as others lose out.
The nation should not think that improving the local investment environment is the only way to solve imbalances. Past experience has shown that strengthening competitiveness in disadvantaged areas magnifies social injustices.
The economic opening in Tibet has allowed outsiders to benefit greatly from the tourism industry, but tensions grew because locals lost out. A central government cannot blindly direct regional distribution without appropriate policies to prevent social division and inequality.
The government must also be more cautious about the contradictions and conflicts produced by government market intervention in combination with policy relaxation and market deregulation. There is a downside to policies based on ideas of efficiency, a clean and capable government and Keynesian infrastructure. With a rigid government system, capable bureaucrats may create further restrictions, but in a neoliberal system, administrative reform is challenging.
The Singaporean and South Korean governments, for example, have chosen laudable goals for national development. Singapore defines itself as a city of financial investment and international conferences, while South Korea defines itself as a country of cultural innovation and international conferences.
How should Taiwan define itself? This deserves in-depth discussion. The incoming administration has proposed an Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center (APROC), which would require a large skilled and international force of skilled workers, in addition to financial liberalization, high-quality urban life, cheap and easily obtained land and office space and stable but flexible labor policies.
These issues involve educational, financial and economic factors. With the government as it stands, even the most capable administration would be unable to perform efficiently. Government reform is necessary.
Is the APROC project the core target for the nation to improve its competitiveness? If not, what should the goal of future development be? Cultural innovation, green energy and sustainable development? This issue cannot be resolved without gauging public opinion to look for directions, which is as important as improving government efficiency.
In the end, it is the ability of democratic societies to lead that is the most important force for progress.
The experiences of the UK and the US show that letting government investment lead economic development is not a simple economic plan. Rather, it entails re-examining the government, the relationship between central and local governments and public welfare.
“The third sector,” or nongovernmental, nonprofit sector, along with a new partnership between the public and private sectors and cooperation among local governments are all key Keynesian mechanisms.
This involves not only government reconstruction, but also key issues such as financial policy, public welfare and land redistribution. Without these, large, misplaced investments will lead to financial deterioration and damage to national competitiveness.
Since Taiwan has chosen the path of neoliberalism, it is the public’s responsibility to face the challenge united.
The government should promote fair trade, not free trade. It should relax restrictions, but not labor protections. It should invest in sustainable infrastructure projects. It should pursue administrative reform to ensure an efficient, upright and capable government.
Furthermore, it should continue to develop the nation’s democracy so that all social groups continue to engage in dialogue with one another. Let’s make communication and consensus the spirit of progress.
Hsu Yen-hsing is a doctoral student at the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS