Statistical manipulation
Even as an ardent detractor of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his incompetent and corrupt party, it has been impossible to ignore the discourse on this side of the Fourth Estate degenerating into an endless series of polemics against Ma.
It was a delight to see an article that used statistical analysis to compare the economy’s performance under former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration between 2000 and 2008 with how it has fared under this current bunch of sino-phantic cronies, although my delight was tempered somewhat upon seeing that the author was the economic adviser to Chen Shui-bian and avid Ma critic Chen Po-chih (陳博志) (“Comparing economic performances,” Sept. 22, page 8).
Before finishing the first few paragraphs I was disappointed, but not surprised, that even the pure realm of statistical analysis can, through obvious omissions, be recruited to the belligerent field of partisan scrimmaging.
In an article purporting to analyze how the two administrations managed the nation’s financial health from 2000 until last year, there is not one mention of the global financial crisis.
To compare the performance of the parties without mentioning the recession does nothing to show how the Ma-led government managed the economy.
Chen Po-chih said the “economic growth rate between 1999 and 2007 was 4.4 percent. Between 2007 and last year, it was 2.93 percent, and projected growth for this year is about 2 percent.”
What is not mentioned is that the combined year-on-year growth rate for 2008 and 2009 was minus-0.53 percent.
According to the World Bank, from 2008 until 2009, Japan had a “growth” rate of minus-3.5 percent and the US’ was minus-1.75 percent. Asian economies comparable to Taiwan had the following growth rates: Hong Kong minus-0.2 percent, Thailand 0.01 percent, Singapore 0.45 percent, South Korea 1.3 percent and Malaysia 1.65 percent.
In his article, Chen Po-chih failed to mention that in 2010 Taiwan had 10.76 percent year-on-year growth, which, according to the World Bank, was bettered by only seven countries.
In another example of selective analysis, Chen Po-chih said: “In 2007, total government debt increased by only NT$23.7 billion (US$800 million), while last year it increased by NT$247.6 billion. Between 2008 and last year, government debt increased to NT$1.8155 trillion, equal to NT$78,000 per capita.”
That government debt has rocketed to an all time high is undeniable, but as a percentage of GDP the debt actually increased faster in the first five years of Chen Shui-bian’s administration.
The point here is not to defend Ma’s management of the economy, but to show that when facts, figures and events are omitted and manipulated to make a point, it reduces the writer’s credibility and, even more grievously, it shows intellectual dishonesty.
Hunter Hitchens
Taipei
Repeal language reform
I recently read with disappointment in the Taipei Times that the government wants to make native language classes compulsory in schools (“Native languages to be compulsory,” Sept. 6, page 1). As a middle-school student, I feel strongly that we should learn these languages by our own will.
Forcing students to learn native languages is a waste of time, and may even result in the loss in value of these languages. Furthermore, the education system in Taiwan is already stressful to students. Adding more subjects only adds to student’s workload and stress.
The article said that most teachers and parents think students should learn native languages. However, in my opinion, this is a waste of time. Students in my generation are overwhelmed studying other subjects, such as math, science and Mandarin.
If we force students to learn Hakka, Taiwanese or an Aboriginal language, we are simply wasting students’ time. A better way would be to let students learn how to speak these native languages on their own. For example, students should speak more of these languages at home with their parents and grandparents.
Students need time to learn other subjects, and they should have a choice as to what they learn. While it is important to keep native languages alive, forcing school students to take extra classes is just not the right way to do it.
Manny Lin
Greater Taichung
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath