President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) won the presidential election by playing the economy card. Many of his promises, such as increasing economic growth to 6 percent, or cutting the rate of unemployment to 3 percent, were criticized as impossibilities during the campaign since Taiwan has little chance of beating the odds when the international economy is sluggish. Ma’s government also faces challenges from inflation and soaring commodity prices. However, the Achilles’ heel of his government is not his impossible economic promises, but the fact that the direction of his economic policy is mistaken.
If the government pursues these policies, it will increase deindustrialization and unemployment, reduce consumers’ real income, erode the middle class and increase the number of poor. Civil unrest and public discontentment will follow.
Ma’s thinking follows typical neoliberal economic and globalization ideas: the government should intervene in and administer markets as little as possible in order to create a single globalized free market to facilitate global pillaging by trans-national corporations. His so-called “opening” is really privatization and deregulation aimed at allowing markets to operate freely.
Neoliberalism has always insisted that the government must not intervene in markets because markets are all-powerful, and can automatically resolve their own problems.
Ma believes that all market intervention by the government is a form of containment. However, Ma’s theory is immoral: he considers all governmental policies regulating markets in order to care for the welfare of the lower and middle class as a form of “containment,” “isolationist” and not “open.”
This purposeful misleading by sleight-of-word is not presidential behavior.
Many top economists have long claimed that there are a multitude of problems connected to neoliberal economic globalization. The theory has been in practice since the early 1980s, and its mainstays are deregulation, completely liberalized markets, privatization of all industries — including government-owned firms — and the reduction or cancellation of social welfare payments.
Argentina’s painful experiences serve as an example. In the 1990s, the IMF and the World Bank named Argentina the paragon of developing nations. To accede to the demands of those two institutions, Argentina greatly deregulated its economy, lowered tariffs, privatized government enterprises and cancelled many social welfare measures. Initially, the economy did indeed improve.
However, after more demands from the IMF in 2000, Argentina’s economy quickly collapsed. This, along with social unrest, led the Argentine president to declare national bankruptcy and admit that neoliberal economic globalization had destroyed his country.
A M-shaped society is emerging around the world, including in Europe and North America. Many academics believe this is the result of globalization. Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) has admitted the beginning of a M-shaped society in Taiwan and listed the strengthening of the middle class as a priority.
Solving the problems caused by a M-shaped society and strengthening the middle class are not goals that can be achieved through more globalization, but by more comprehensive regulations to curb trans-national corporations’ plundering.
Ma and Liu obviously do not get this point. Massive deregulation will not invigorate the public, but corporations. Is Ma’s public made up entirely of corporations?
If the government truly wants to strengthen the middle class, then it shouldn’t deregulate. It must focus on how to keep industries and their investments in Taiwan, rather than hollowing out the country.
Allen Houng is a professor at National Yang Ming University.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS