Sometimes you really do have to ask yourself whether President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is actually living in cloud cuckoo land.
Fresh from the fiasco of nominating a controversial “dinosaur” judge to the Council of Grand Justices, Ma got it wrong again in a comment he made about the economy. On Saturday he said that last year’s economic growth rate was the best the Taiwanese economy has seen in 63 years. What on earth is he talking about? This goes against the facts of Taiwan’s economic development. Ma was here during Taiwan’s most prosperous era, so how can he not recall those heady days?
Let’s look at the figures. Last year the economy grew at a rate of 10.82 percent. That’s a pretty healthy rate, but nothing out of the ordinary compared with the kinds of rates we were seeing from the 1960s to the 1980s, when figures exceeding 10 percent were relatively common. Specifically, in 1964, 1965 and 1967 the economic growth rate in Taiwan was 11.57, 10.85 and 10.41 percent, respectively.
The 1970s saw even higher rates. In 1970 the rate was 10.60 percent. The following year it jumped to 12.45 percent, which, though impressive, was trumped by 13.15 percent in 1972. It was slightly lower in 1973, at 11.83 percent, but then was back up again in 1976, reaching 13.45 percent. The highest figure was that of 1978, when the rate climbed to 13.49 percent.
Not wanting to labor the point, the 1980s saw growth rates of 11.00, 10.68 and 10.38 percent in 1986, 1987 and 1989 respectively.
Looking at these figures, one notices that the rate exceeded 11 percent on seven occasions. How, then, can Ma claim that last year’s rate represented the highest economic growth rate in 63 years?
The reason why last year’s rate was so high was simply because the base rate to which it was compared was so low. In 2008 and 2009, at the very beginning of Ma’s presidency, the growth rate was 0.73 percent and minus-1.93 percent respectively. For two years running, then, Taiwan experienced its lowest and third-lowest rates in half a century. Last year’s figure represents a rebound from a virtually unprecedented low, so it can hardly be regarded as a peak in itself, and there is certainly no reason to take any pride in it. This is not even up to the standards seen when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was in power. In 2001, the economy contracted by 1.65 percent, but in the following year it was growing at 5.26 percent.
That the Ma administration sees fit to harp on about something that one has no business being proud of simply demonstrates the diffidence of this government.
To add insult to injury, this 10.82 percent growth rate has made no actual improvement to the life of ordinary people in this country.
According to a recent online survey by two Web-based human resource companies on salaried workers’ attitudes about the price of everyday goods and services in Taiwan, 94 percent of respondents said they were concerned about rising prices. Many companies say they will adjust salaries upward, but according to the survey, 72 percent of respondents claim that their salaries have not gone up. The remaining 28 percent are the lucky ones, although in more than 90 percent of these cases the salary rise is less than 2 percent. With the rate of inflation taken into account, even these raises represent a reduction in salaries in real terms.
While the Ma administration is busy declaring grandiose-sounding economic figures, the reality is that the fat cats are getting fatter, while the ordinary person is suffering.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval