Faced with a grim economic crisis, US Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, are engaging in intense debate. McCain, with close ties to big business, has increasingly made remarks that run counter to public sentiment, proposing continued deregulation of the financial system and reliance on free markets.
At a time of chaos on global financial markets, shrinking domestic demand and aggravated poverty and social conflict, McCain’s statements deviate from the social and economic realities facing the average citizen. No wonder Obama jumped on McCain’s economic proposals, asking him: “Senator, what economy are you talking about?”
One point of contention in the US financial bailout is the question of which social group profits and which group loses.
In the same way, it is important to consider who will be the beneficiaries of Taiwan’s attempts to contain economic and financial damage. The Cabinet and the Presidential Office’s economic advisory task force have proposed a series of measures to revive the economy, such as halving the securities transaction tax, reducing the inheritance tax and providing a blanket guarantee for private deposits.
The global economic crisis and soaring energy and food prices have led to a deterioration in living standards.
Between January and August this year, the average unemployment rate, the number of weeks of unemployment and the number of people laid off because of closures have hit three-year highs. In the same period, the unemployment rate for college graduates jumped to 4.16 percent, the highest level since 1978. In August, each job seeker had an average of 0.79 job opportunities, the lowest level since July 2001. In addition, local wage earners saw their income decline by 2.72 percent in real terms in the first seven months of the year, the worst decline in 28 years.
We do not mean to attribute the declining economy and public suffering to the government on this basis alone. However, a government that boasts of the ability to feel the pain of the people must take a serious look at its policy priorities: Whose pain are they feeling, and whose distress are they relieving?
It is true that the government’s policies are aimed at protecting the disadvantaged and promoting employment growth, but judging from policy strength, focus and effectiveness, these measures are still at the discussion stages or implemented perfunctorily.
Even the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) own think tank admits that the results of measures for caring for the disadvantaged and for stimulating consumption have been limited.
More importantly, in its eagerness to save the stock market, the government has intervened in a free market by activating the National Stabilization Fund and prohibiting short selling for two weeks. When it comes to price hikes in electricity for household use, however, the government stresses “a return to the market mechanism.”
This double standard is transparent to a public whose distress the government is trying to relieve.
Meanwhile, it is questionable that halving the securities transaction tax and reducing the inheritance tax — measures worth tens of billions of dollars that mostly benefit wealthy people — will achieve the goals of accelerating capital flow. Without supplementary measures, these actions will increase social injustice and eat up money needed for educational and social policies.
So, we also must ask the government and their economic experts: “What economy are you talking about?”
The government has time and again emphasized the mid and long-term economic measures cannot yield instant results.
Even so, we ask if the government is ready to establish a transparent political and financial system and if it is willing to allocate resources to education, the job market and social security. Only then can the government establish a truly healthy and complete economic environment.
While the KMT has long subscribed to neo-liberal ideas and stressed the omnipotence of the market, the fact is that only the strong make a profit and the weak lose out.
When structural problems in the capitalist system are revealed, it is time for the government to adjust its policy direction and stress the balance between nation, market and civic society.
Yang Wei-chung is a social activist. Lee Wen-chung is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS