Before he could reach 60, taxi driver Liu Chin-yi (劉進義) took his own life because he was struggling to make ends meet. His suicide note read like an elegy for Taiwan’s lower classes and the difficult lives they lead.
Tragically, Liu voted for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) because he had become disillusioned with the lack of improvement in the economy under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). However, after five years of Ma, not only has the promised economic upturn failed to materialize, but salaries have continued to shrink, with some salaries falling to less than NT$20,000 a month.
At a loss, Liu watched on with anger as Ma embarked upon what critics call a political vendetta against Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平). In his suicide note, Liu blamed the government for focusing on internal disputes instead of the economy and, in his anger, decided to make that final journey.
Liu’s experiences and the his changing perspective are a perfect reflection of Taiwan’s socioeconomic situation over the past 13 years. They show that the majority of Taiwanese are unaware of the reason for today’s sluggish economy.
Liu seems to have not known that the reason the economy deteriorated under Chen was because of his policy of proactive liberalization toward China. This policy saw Taiwanese businesses invest heavily in China, draining local investment and causing a decrease in overall salary levels that affected business for taxi drivers.
If Liu had known this, he would never have voted for Ma, because Ma advocates an even more proactive opening up to China. Nor would he have believed Ma’s “6-3-3” campaign pledge that was supposed to bring about 6 percent annual economic growth, US$30,000 per capita income and an unemployment rate lower than 3 percent by last year. The president has since said that the target date was 2016, but that he had not explained how he would achieve these goals clearly enough.
After five years, Ma has failed to deliver on his “6-3-3” vow and Liu’s monthly income dropped to just NT$20,000. Unfortunately, Liu did not realize that this was the result of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that Ma signed with China. If he had known, he would probably have come out to protest against the cross-strait service trade agreement, which is a significant extension of the ECFA.
Ma wanted Wang out as he was not cooperating with the president’s demands to speed the agreement through the legislature. Had the agreement been stalled in the legislature because of tensions between Ma and Wang, this would have been a good thing for Liu, as it would have provided a glimmer of hope to the economy and given people less to feel pessimistic about — it would have been a cause for celebration.
Unfortunately, the pro-China pan-blue camp still has firm control over the discourse on political and economic issues. They craftily ousted Wang because of his resistance to the agreement and smeared him by claiming that his actions were causing “internal attrition” and “prevarication” in the legislature.
Taiwanese society seems to have responded to these events mainly with editorials and critiques about how political in-fighting is sinking the ship and taking ordinary people down with it or point out how Taiwan needs to stop wasting time and refocus on the economy. This is a dangerous mindset, because it suggests to the public that the Ma administration’s economic policies are correct and that political protest is wasteful.
It was precisely this erroneous mindset that caused Liu to become depressed and eventually lose the will to live.
As Taiwan’s largest opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party, should also take some responsibility for Liu’s death. It did not opposed the ECFA strongly enough, while its criticism of the service trade agreement has been halfhearted at best, with the party only saying that the pact was achieved through backroom deals and is bad for the economy.
This has allowed the Ma administration to easily gain the advantage when it comes to propagating its policies for
economic integration with China and subsequently distort how the majority of Taiwanese think and see things. This is the most saddening thing of all.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past