A recent news commentary said: “The fall in trading volume on Taiwan’s stock exchange has aroused particular concern from the Cabinet, which sees it as a warning that action needs to be taken ... and it will immediately organize an interministerial meeting about how to rescue the stock market.”
Another one stated: “We should acknowledge the speedy action of the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] [legislative] caucus in integrating various proposals for a capital gains tax on securities investments, thus minimizing market uncertainty.”
These examples show how closely politics and the stock market are tied together. They are a reflection of a remarkable cultural trait that has long been prevalent in Taiwan — namely the idea that the government should be held responsible for the state of the stock market and that it should show special concern about how the stock market reacts whenever it proposes a new financial policy. However, this cultural trait has not only caused a continual waste of political resources, it has also hindered the sound development of the stock market and has had a profound effect on the nation’s long-term competitiveness.
The stock market is affected by many factors. Apart from economic, financial and monetary policies, other factors include the economic cycle, the growth and decline of industries, interaction with global financial markets and the regional political and economic climate. One could say that the stock market is like a window display that gives an overall reflection of all these factors, so trying to control the stock market by means of any single factor is bound to be a waste of effort.
Financial policies are not formulated just to create a conducive environment for industry and investment, but, more importantly, to determine the most rational distribution of resources. Effective policies must take the nation’s long-term development goals as their starting point and should not be unduly influenced by short-term rises and falls in stock prices. As long as policies are oriented in such a way as to promote economic growth and social justice, they will naturally promote a healthy development of the stock market — and a healthy stock market characterized by rationality and fairness will in turn help create greater economic prosperity.
However, Taiwanese politicians seem fixated on the stock market. When they are interviewed, they are always ready to quote data such as stock index fluctuations and trading volume. When the stock market is on the rise, they can hardly contain their joy, as if it were a confirmation of their policy achievements. On the other hand, when the market falls, they look tense and anxious and are keen to state the government’s determination to save the market.
If the government is so focused on the stock market, it is bound to waste a lot of time and effort on seeking quick results that fix the symptoms, but are not effective in the long term. As a result, resources that the government could use for formulating and implementing long-term policies are diverted to serve short-term goals instead.
Another consequence of this excessively close relations between politics and the stock market is interference in the stock market for political ends. Government officials often comment arbitrarily in the media on stock values and fluctuations. What is even more improper is when there is a big fall in the stock market and officials either openly state or drop hints that they will use public resources to salvage the market. Their purpose is to boost stock market confidence, but they do not think about the possibility that if investors — especially relatively disadvantaged individual investors — buy shares based on what officials say, it will cause even greater harm in the long run. This practice fuels rumors about whether state funds are going to enter the market to prop up the index and impedes the normal functioning of the equity market.
Public fund managers assess the market according to their expertise. If they think shares are undervalued, they will naturally buy them. There is no need for political instructions, be they overt or covert. If fund managers buy shares to prop up the market, they are acting counter to their proper mission. If various funds act together, they could be suspected of manipulating the market. Propping up the stock market should not be counted as a political achievement, but when a finance minister was not willing to support the bourse, she had to resign.
These days, government action to support the stock market has come to be seen as fair and normal and to be counted as a policy achievement. As a result, investors have become increasingly reliant on government intervention. It is very hard to foster a healthily functioning capital market under such conditions.
It is indeed very difficult to correct a cultural trait that has been in place for so many years, but the present difficulties faced by Taiwan’s economy make it imperative to do so.
While Taiwanese are focused on how to boost the stock market’s trading volume, South Korea’s per capita GDP has long surpassed that of Taiwan. A free-trade agreement (FTA) between South Korea and the US has already come into effect, and negotiations on a China-Japan-South Korea FTA will commence this year. South Korean products like Samsung mobile phones, memory modules and display panels are crushing their Taiwanese competitors. To get to where they are today, the South Koreans had to develop long-term plans and then carry them out step by step. They certainly did not get there through a hasty series of populist and emotional short-term policies.
To relieve economic and finance officials of the pressure from interference and reduce the waste of resources, allowing them to concentrate on drawing up long-term economic policies and effectively promoting them, political and social leaders should wake up and make a concerted effort to correct this abnormal cultural trait.
The controversy over the proposed capital gains tax, in which politics and the stock market have become entangled, is over for the time being.
Now what we need is a bit of calm. Let capital markets return to their proper form and discipline and ensure that politics and the stock market keep a respectable distance from one another.
Kevin Niu is a columnist with the Yu Chi-chung Cultural and Educational Foundation.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
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