As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) nears the first anniversary of her presidency, the public continues to be displeased with her performance. While the president’s approval ratings remain low, the Cabinet is even further from meeting public expectations.
Despite the Tsai administration’s NT$882.49 billion (US$29.22 billion) Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program, modeled on US President Donald Trump’s US$1 trillion infrastructure plan, and its consistent efforts to push for pension reform, it has received little praise and been unable to turn the tide of public opinion.
A look at the Tsai government’s major policies should reveal how the Democratic Progressive Party, now in complete control of the executive and legislative branches, could run into a brick wall so soon after its sweeping victories in last year’s presidential and legislative elections.
The administration’s first major policy was the five-day workweek system. Before the implementation of the policy, 30 percent of Taiwan’s workers did not have two regular days off every week. It made sense to implement a five-day workweek by revising the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法).
However, lacking sufficient knowledge of the practical effects, the government decided on a version of the law that was highly idealistic and put great pressure on employers.
The new law, which divides rest days into fixed days off and flexible days off, stipulates that all employees must take at least one day off during any given seven day-period. In addition, overtime pay was also sharply increased and the same rules applied to all industries, without exception.
Industries around the world are going through fundamental changes as big data, artificial intelligence, automation and other technologies proliferate. The Tsai administration has emphasized the need to develop the “five plus two” innovative industries — an “Asian Silicon Valley,” “intelligent” machinery, “green” energy, biomedicine and national defense — in addition to setting up a new agricultural business model and a circular economy.
However, it has continued to cling to a labor law mainly designed for labor-intense manufacturing industries, causing Internet-related industries and businesses that are heavily dependent on mental work to be bound by unnecessary restrictions.
Taiwanese industry consists primarily of the export and service industries, which typically have high personnel costs and experience seasonal fluctuations in demand. Reduced flexibility in personnel management under the new rules has significantly increased costs for such companies.
Big corporations might be able to adjust to changes brought by the new labor law, but small companies might not even be able to survive. Increased costs have also caused consumer prices to rise, making life even more difficult for the general public.
Meanwhile, tighter rules on overtime hours and higher overtime pay have only increased stress for employers and made employees unable to work as much as they want to increase their earnings. In other words, the result is a situation where employers, employees and consumers all lose.
Another policy that has received a lot of criticism is the government’s tax reform plans. Increased globalization and freer flow of capital has led to a trend among nations of lowering tax rates to attract investors. One good example of this is the tax cuts proposed by Trump.
If even the US — with its leading technologies and strong economy — needs to reduce its tax rates to attract more business and investors, what reasons does Taiwan — as its economy remains stagnant — have to increase its tax rates in the name of normalizing its tax regulations?
The ongoing tax reform is slowly taking Taiwan in the opposite direction of where many other nations are heading.
One of the government’s tax reform plans is to increase the gift and inheritance tax rates and use the additional revenue to fund a national long-term care services program.
Under former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the gift and inheritance tax rates were significantly reduced, from 50 percent to 10 percent, but revenue generated from those taxes did not decrease.
The reason for this was that wealthy people did not feel the need to avoid those taxes after these had been lowered; from the government’s point of view, getting 10 percent is better than getting nothing at all. With these tax rates now set to rise, there is a great risk that tax revenue might not increase as the government expected.
In addition, under current law, tax rates on stock dividends are different for domestic and foreign investors. This has created a huge advantage for the latter, who typically own more than half of the shares in Taiwanese blue chip companies.
For example, 79 percent of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) shares are owned by foreign investors. As a result, much of the wealth created by TSMC has gone into the pockets of foreign investors. Taiwanese blue-chip companies nevertheless are the main driving force on the nation’s stock market.
This is why, although the Taiwan Stock Exchange broke through the 10,000-point barrier last week, domestic demand remains low and the general public and consumers hardly notice any difference.
Of all possible solutions for the difference in tax rates on dividend income, the government chose one that would ensure the lowest loss in tax revenue.
Only about 30,000 investors who trade large volumes and fall into the consolidated income tax brackets with a tax rate of 40 percent or more would benefit from the plan, while about 1.5 million investors with low or medium incomes would have to pay more tax on their stock dividends.
The government also cut the transaction tax on day trading in the hope of boosting trading volumes to save the flagging securities industry by attracting more funds into the local equity market.
The tax cut certainly shows that the government is pushing for tax reform, but its approach is nevertheless bewildering. Despite bullish sentiment in the Taiwanese stock market, the securities industry is still a long way from full recovery — a sign that many fundamental problems remain unsolved.
For example, the growth of electronic trading means that there will be less demand for personnel in the securities industry.
The day trading tax cut would certainly not be enough to help securities companies offset their revenue losses. While the tax cut could attract more short-term investors to the stock market, it really needs long-term investors who can bring stability to the market.
As it turns out, the tax cut only brought additional funds to the stock market for two days, after which the trading volume immediately fell back.
Unreasonable securities transaction and stock dividend tax rates should be corrected as soon as possible, as they can be detrimental to the long-term development of the capital market. By ignoring the real issue and trying to take a shortcut, the government might instead be exacerbating problems.
Taiwan’s biggest problem is its low wages, but instead of focusing on improving the nation’s sluggish economy, the government has created more problems for industries by thwarting their development.
This is why employers and employees alike are unhappy with the government. From the five-day workweek reform to tax reform, it is clear that the Tsai administration lacks the ability to address the root causes of problems.
In addition, it is cautious and often gets caught up in minor details. Whenever its policy brings negative effects, it tends to respond by making a series of minor changes instead of making the fundamental changes necessary to correct the situation.
If a policy decision proves to be wrong, it is better to correct it as soon as possible and be mocked for flip-flopping than to allow problems to drag on.
Now that Tsai has been in office for almost one year, she must be more aware of the serious consequences that poorly designed policies can bring.
If bad policies are implemented and never corrected, not only would the government continue to find itself in ever deeper trouble, it would also hurt Taiwan’s future.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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