On Tuesday, the Taiwan Confederation of Trade Unions (TCTU) organized a demonstration at the Council of Labor Affairs to protest against companies forcing workers to take unpaid leave, a practice that the TCTU says violates labor laws.
The demonstration is over, but the economic downturn continues. Although the economic crisis is global, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration have prolonged the crisis and made it more difficult to end the economic downturn domestically by employing hardline, centralized policies.
With the domestic unemployment rate reaching 4.64 percent last month, we must wonder whether Ma’s economic policies will increase employment.
The reality is that capitalists have a certain amount of political influence, and that could easily restrict the direction of national policy.
When the government bails out capitalists with its limited financial resources and hands out consumer vouchers with clear overtones of vote-buying, this takes resources from national relief funds for education, cultural and social activities and environmental protection, making these sectors the biggest losers in the economic downturn.
In addition to providing financial assistance to capitalists, the government will issue consumer vouchers for every citizen and has mapped out plans to save the property and stock markets.
Where will all this money come from? Will the public have to shoulder the financial burden or will the government impose higher taxes on the companies that benefit from the bailout?
The first answer that comes to mind is, of course, tax hikes.
But the legislature has never managed to pass a bill to raise taxes, except for the alternative minimum tax bill proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 2005, which required every rich person and profitable enterprise to pay a certain amount in taxes, leading to an annual increase of nearly NT$20 billion (US$606 million) in tax revenues.
All other tax bills proposed relaxing the requirements for tax exemptions or breaks.
If the total of available resources doesn’t increase, it is impossible to increase social welfare spending. Where is the government supposed to find the extra resources?
Since it is difficult to impose higher taxes on companies, the government will have to take on debt, but this burden will be shared by the public and is unfair to future generations. We must keep in mind that 70 percent of tax revenues come from wage earners.
It is most irresponsible for the government to expand its debts — especially unproductive, non-capital debts, of which the consumer vouchers are a prime example.
This scheme would have been voted down in many countries because it is politically, not economically, motivated.
If the government had used the nearly NT$90 billion designated for the consumer voucher plan to hire 300,000 people at a monthly salary of NT$30,000 a year, the unemployment rate would decrease, which would stimulate consumer spending.
Now the biggest problem is that the public suffering from the economic meltdown sees no hope.
What does national vision mean? It means that the government should protect public welfare and property and establish a beautiful, clean, sustainable, just and fair living environment, in which lives are respected and talent is fostered.
The global financial turmoil has adversely affected the nation’s economy and many suffer from unemployment and rising commodity prices. But is there hope? We don’t expect the government to realize this vision in four or eight years, but at least it should lead us toward this vision and happiness.
If the government continues its current policies, the GDP will have risen by at most 5 percentage points three years from now, which is less than under the previous government.
Where is our hope when national sovereignty is under attack, national debt is exploding, social order is destroyed and the gap between rich and poor is expanding? What is the value of enduring such hardships?
Frank Hsieh is founder of Taiwan Shadow Government, an NGO.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath