Addressing the issue of wealth redistribution following the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said his government would control uneven distribution of wealth through taxes and social welfare measures.
These comments are in relation to the main concern surrounding the ECFA talks — that the rich will get richer, while the poor get poorer.
Today, the government is in a financial crisis. After repeatedly reducing taxes for the wealthy over the past two years, there is no room for debt financing.
By talking about taxes and social welfare measures, Ma is building castles in the air.
Early last month, the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong released the results of a local public opinion poll, entitled Public attitudes toward the harmonious society in Hong Kong.
The results showed that the most serious social contradictions were those between the rich and the poor and those between residents and conglomerates.
Surprisingly, a quarter of the respondents agreed with employing “radical means” to force the government to respond to the problems.
Behind Hong Kong’s brilliant economic figures lies a serious income gap.
Despite Hong Kong’s per capita GDP exceeding US$30,000, an analysis by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service last year showed that the poverty rate was approximately 17.9 percent and that 1.236 million people in poor households with low incomes live below the poverty line.
The latest statistics show that Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient — a measure of wealth distribution where 0 describes perfect equality and 1 describes perfect inequality — has reached 0.533, the widest income gap among all developed economies.
Looking at Taiwan, Chiu Hei-yuan (瞿海源), an Academia Sinica research fellow, says that if Taiwan does not handle its cross-strait and industrial policies cautiously, the income gap is likely to be even worse than that in the next two or three years.
An ECFA is essentially the same as the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) China signed with Hong Kong, as they are both free-trade agreements with “Chinese characteristics.”
That also means the approach to informing the WTO is handled with “Chinese characteristics” — that is, Taiwan’s leaders lean toward China. Putting aside any sovereignty concerns, an ECFA will mean increased social contradictions as the rich get richer the poor get poorer.
The director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, Wang Yi (王毅), said during an interview on March 30 that the signing of an ECFA was first proposed by Taiwan.
The process is the same as with the CEPA. With Taiwan’s initial request and China’s active cooperation, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party hope to duplicate the “successful experience” of the CEPA in Taiwan.
They also hope to boost Taiwan’s economy and Ma’s support ratings through a proposed ECFA, which is said to be even more preferential than the CEPA.
The vision the government promotes by proposing an ECFA is a mirage.
It will duplicate Hong Kong’s social problems by increasing the polarization between rich and poor and this will surely lead to tragedy as the ranks of the poor keep growing.
Hong Chi-chang is a former chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked