Take advice from Australia
Much has been written in recent months on the global financial crisis, looming recession, rising unemployment rates and their anticipated social and economic costs. What I wish to draw readers’ attention to is the recent (seemingly unrelated) job losses in Australia and those in Taiwan and other developed economies around the world.
Pacific Brands, Australia’s largest textiles and clothing manufacturer, announced on Wednesday that it was shutting-up shop and moving (equipment and) operations to China, a hitherto unforeseen consequence (in Australia) of the global economic slow down. This step toward lower cost production means the loss of almost 2,000 Australian jobs, with many of those (typically low-paid and low-skilled) workers affected, likely to find it hard to re-enter the job market again in the short to medium term.
What does this have to do with Taiwan and its current economic woes? The editorial in The Age newspaper on Friday, I believe, has some useful advice for those in Taiwan wishing to mitigate the effects of the global economic downturn and offset the competitive advantage China has as a low cost manufacturer of consumer items. Australia, like Taiwan, should “foster industries that draw on and increase the educational advantage of Australian workers over those in low-wage economies,” the editorial said.
In pursuing innovation and new economic opportunities, Australia (read Taiwan) needs to “be clever in deciding what industries are sustainable in the global markets in which we compete,” the paper said.
Taiwan, like Australia, is a country with comparatively high living standards, high wages and a well educated population; it needs to play to its strengths and develop expertise in certain key industries, the technology and alternative fuel/transport sector for instance. Taiwan also needs to diversify its investments and think creatively in developing markets for its goods; overreliance on China, or indeed, any one market, is imprudent and defies the reality of an already globalized investment market.
While we in Australia and Taiwan reflect on the job losses to date, with more likely to come, now is the time to pursue strategies which play to our advantages in the new, emerging and sustainable markets of the future.
KARL HABY
Taipei
Blame Fu, not Cao
Rupert Hammond-Chambers (Letters, Feb. 22, page 8) needs to direct his protest or clarification toward Norman Fu (傅建中), not towards Cao Changqing (曹長青) as Cao was merely quoting Fu’s Feb. 13 article in the China Times in his opinion piece (“The KMT is a master at silencing dissidents,” Feb. 18, page 8).
In his article, titled “All royal palaces to the new Master,” Fu bragged proudly about the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) successfully insisting that “John Tkacik must walk.”
To give Hammond-Chambers the benefit of understanding Fu’s proud report, I am translating, as follows, the last three paragraphs of Fu’s article.
“Therefore, after regaining power, the KMT insisted that John Tkacik must walk. The KMT went as far as summoning the president of the Heritage Foundation Edwin Feuner [sic] to TRCRO [sic] to give him an in-person lecture about the right thing to do. Both sides, for the sake of saving face, in the end agreed on the ‘retirement’ of John Tkacik; thus, achieving the goal of firing Tkacik. This was the second time Tkacik retired. Previously, he retired from the position of chief of China Analysis, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, US Department of State.”
“Fairly speaking, although John Tkacik is not a top China expert of any sort, he does write a lot and produces a lot, which is an undeniable fact. Exactly because of that, he is particularly dangerous. [We] absolutely must give him a ‘Riddance Party.’”
“The KMT’s return to power is, in a way, the start of John Tkacik’s bad luck. In addition to being forced into retirement, he recently also suffered from the loss of his mother. It’s a double misfortune for him. But John Tkacik supports the Democratic Progressive Party, is extremely hostile to the Chinese Communist Party, opposes the ‘one China’ policy, agrees with Taiwan’s independence and supports the referendum initiated by [former president] Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), he indeed has gone overboard with his right-wing position and has totally ignored the interests of the United States. His fate today should be a cause for him to reflect on his conscience. Yet, as an American, how could he possibly be capable of understanding the great principle of “self-reflection” of [the people in] China. One shall say that John Tkacik fetched his own fate by offending the new master of the royal palaces [ie the new ruler]. He might wish that he had known what he was getting into and he must be regretting very much now about what he did in the past.”
The translation above retains Fu’s writing style, to give Hammond-Chambers a sense of what China Times readers received.
Fu’s self-congratulating, arrogant, childish tone has been reduced, not enhanced, in the translation. The phrase “Riddance Party” was written in English in Fu’s otherwise Chinese article. As well, Fu’s improper inclusion of Tkacik’s loss of a loved one in Fu’s count of Tkacik’s “double misfortune” is retained in the translation, for Hammond-Chambers’ benefit.
Fu spelled out the events in absolutely clear text. We have not seen a clarification from the Heritage Foundation on the subject since the publication of Fu’s article on Feb 13. Unless no China expert there is capable of reading the China Times, one must assume that the foundation indeed has allowed itself to be bullied into silence.
SING YOUNG
Taoyuan City
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs