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.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,
RSS