The Cabinet may claim to be a body of doctoral degree holders, but they are often incapable of explaining their ever-changing policies. This was true of the US beef import debacle and it applies both to an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China and to the draft industrial renewal act that the legislature is about to vote on. On the eve of the vote, the Cabinet suddenly announced that it would cut the 20 percent business income tax rate in the draft to 17 percent. That cut will cost the government NT$30 billion (US$956 million) in lost tax revenue.
The draft industrial renewal act is intended as a replacement for the expired Act for Upgrading Industries (促進產業升級條例). It extends tax cuts and incentives that have made Taiwanese industry dependent on government subsidies. By cutting the business income tax from 20 percent to 17 percent in response to opposition calls for a 17.5 percent tax rate, the government is using fiscal revenue to feed industrial profit. By not reforming the regulations in the Act for Upgrading Industries, which distorted the tax system, the government will erode fiscal revenues by helping wealthy people earn more and pay less taxes. While certain to compound social injustice, the effects on industrial renewal are questionable.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) has said the 17 percent tax rate was determined by looking at Singapore and that the cut is intended to increase Taiwan’s attractiveness to foreign investors. The difference is that while Singapore relies on the service industry for its growth, Taiwan’s specialty is manufacturing. The economic structures of the two countries are different and offer different advantages, which means that the conditions required for industrial development differ even more.
If the government wants to encourage industrial renewal to increase competitiveness by looking at Singapore, it is comparing apples and oranges. Taiwan needs to learn from Singapore how to improve efficiency and raise overall competitiveness. The nation needs to take a careful look at its own economic system and find development strategies appropriate to Taiwan, and the government and the opposition must stop competing by undercutting each other’s tax suggestions — that only serves to unload debt onto future generations. The government must also stop blindly pushing for an ECFA that will only encourage local industries to move to China.
Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der (李述德) had previously called the current 20 percent business income tax rate the final limit. He even said that “we can’t cut even 1 percent” off that figure, but after the Cabinet’s decision to cut 3 percent, Lee actually justified the change by saying: “It is only normal that policy keeps changing.” He then glossed over the loss of tax revenue by saying that “the economy will grow.”
If the nation’s finances are squandered on lavish policies because the government wants to save the current financial situation with the help of a hypothetical future economy, it is simply moving the economic crisis forward in time. The policy direction keeps changing without any attempt to explain or defend policy decisions or to take any responsibility for the nation’s future development.
We have now seen different scenarios play out over two of the Cabinet’s major policy initiatives: The draft industrial renewal act and the second generation of the national health insurance system. The behavior of Lee and Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) differed vastly. Yaung defended his ideals and policies to the extent that he was willing to resign. Lee, on the other hand, quickly backed off when he encountered opposition, instead of defending his policies and showing the courage to face the consequences of his decisions. Once again, this shortsighted and unprincipled decision-making process reveals how the government is slowly self-destructing.
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
Beijing’s diplomatic tightening with Jakarta is not an isolated episode; it is a piece of a long-term strategy that realigns the prices of choices across the Indo-Pacific. The principle is simple. There is no need to impose an alliance if one can make a given trajectory convenient and the alternative costly. By tying Indonesia’s modernization to capital, technology and logistics corridors, and by obtaining in public the reaffirmation of the “one China” principle, Beijing builds a constraint that can be activated tomorrow on sensitive issues. The most sensitive is Taiwan. If we look at systemic constraints, the question is not whether
RSS