On Wednesday last week, Taiwan’s benchmark stock index plunged 193 points, falling below its most recent low of 6,877.12 on Sept. 26. Among East Asian stock markets, only those of Japan and Taiwan have sunk lower than they did on Sept. 26, when the threat of a Greek sovereign debt default was looming. Those of South Korea, Hong Kong, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia have not seen such drops. In fact, South Korea’s index finished at 1,783 points on Wednesday last week, 7.9 percent above its most recent low of 1,625.
Thursday’s Chinese-language China Times tried hard to cover for the failings of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration. Referring to the electoral campaigns of Ma and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the paper ran a huge headline reading: “With Ma and Tsai neck-and-neck, Taiwanese stocks hit a two-year low.”
Blaming the market plunge on Ma and Tsai’s opinion-poll deadlock, the China Times report went on: “The market is worried that if Tsai is elected, it won’t be good for cross-strait relations, and that in turn will have an effect on Taiwan’s economy and stock market. These worries have prompted overseas investors to pull out one after another.”
This is a familiar dirty trick played by Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), its pan-blue allies and pro-blue media outlets. In 2008, they used the same trick to fool voters, first scaring people by claiming that if the DPP won the election, the stock market would nosedive, and then saying that if Ma were elected, it would herald a decade-long bull market for Taiwan.
Pan-blue politicians and the media gave the impression that Taiwan’s economic prospects were closely linked to China. They told voters that if they wanted to live well, they had better vote for the KMT because only the KMT could improve relations between Taiwan and China.
Considering what happened last time, let us hope that voters do not fall for the same trick again. Hopefully, DPP leaders and media pundits will boldly repudiate the triple falsehood so often repeated by the pan-blue camp and China-friendly media, namely that peaceful cross-strait relations are an essential condition for Taiwan to succeed, that the so-called “1992 consensus” is a precondition for peace and for Taiwan’s economic development, and that Taiwan could not bear any deterioration in its relations with China. They need to convey that the cross-strait factor is only one condition for Taiwan to be successful, that focusing on Taiwan is a precondition for peace and economic development, and that Taiwan’s economy performed better under former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) than now, and Chen did not recognize any “1992 consensus.”
Taiwan’s economic performance since the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement came into effect at the beginning of this year speaks volumes. From then until Wednesday last week, Taiwan’s stock index has fallen by 24.14 percent. That is a bigger fall than those recorded by other East Asian bourses — 13 percent for South Korea, 22 percent for Hong Kong, 18 percent for Japan, 0.4 percent for Indonesia and 5.4 percent for Thailand, while the Philippines’ index has risen by 1.7 percent.
Why the difference? Facts speak louder than words and the blame clearly lies with Taiwan’s economic integration with China under the Ma administration. Taiwan’s stock-market plunge on Wednesday last week is proof that Ma’s economic policies are taking us in the wrong direction, and the more than 20 million Taiwanese who are not particularly well off are suffering the consequences.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing