When it was in power, the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) financial and economic brainstrust basically came from the Industrial Development Bureau (IDB, 工業局) and the Bureau of Foreign Trade (BOFT, 國際貿易局).
Prior to the 1980s, those who dictated policy included former finance minister Lee Kuo-ting (李國鼎) and former premier Sun Yun-suan (孫運璿), both of whom started out as engineers. They focused much of their attention on the nation's manufacturing industry.
In the 1990s, after trade in manufacture had taken off, foreign trade officials from the BOFT basically took charge of financial and economic policy.
Faced with the issue of industrial transformation, the nation's foreign trade officials tended to adopt a defeatist approach toward the possibility of keeping the manufacturing sector in Taiwan. That is why former KMT premier Vincent Siew's (蕭萬長) earliest plans for an Asia-Pacific logistics hub in the country did not include the manufacturing sector.
Nor did the original idea behind his "green value-added island" concept -- aimed at making the country a hub for global value-added services -- proposed at last month's Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development include the manufacturing sector: Its vision was to transform Taiwan from a manufacturing center into a center for all sorts of services. Both these ideas follow the development patterns of Singapore and Hong Kong.
Siew's plan to make Taiwan into a "value-added island" is intended to connect the country to the rest of the world.
To accomplish this, the plan says, the country has to learn from Ireland, Finland and the Netherlands.
The only thing that these three European countries have in common with Taiwan is that they are all small countries, but the population of each of the three nations is smaller than that of Taiwan.
Although these three countries have fared very well on the economic front in recent years, they do not have anything in common in terms of economic development models.
Finland's economy depends largely on Nokia, the world's leading mobile phone supplier. This is probably a very difficult model to emulate and, in particular, there is nothing to learn in terms of value-added services, which lies at the core of Siew's proposal.
In comparison, the Netherlands' overall industrial development is more balanced, and it is fairly advanced in the agricul-tural, biotech, technology and services sectors.
However, the Netherlands' technology, agriculture and biotech sectors are focused on cutting edge innovation and not value-added services at all.
When it comes to its service sector, the Netherlands has the same kind of irreplaceable geographical advantage as Hong Kong, and that isn't really something that can be readily applied here either.
Both Finland and the Netherlands have international brands that are being sold all over the world, and they are indeed integrated into the global economy. However, Finland only relies on Nokia for that connection, and that link doesn't measure up to Taiwan's many and varied firms that have a global reach.
Emulating Ireland sounds even stranger, since that country has no advanced multinational corporations of its own.
On the contrary, foreign multinationals are setting up factories in Ireland for original equipment manufacturing (OEM) of biotech products as well as computer hardware and software.
In other words, Ireland is merely passively connected to the world by international companies rather than by itself -- is this the sort of economic model Taiwan wants to emulate?
Although Ireland's economy is performing well at the moment, it is identical to Taiwan's experience in the 1970s and 1980s on the back of tax exemptions. The rapid economic growth is a function of late takeoff.
Today, in terms of its IT, hardware and software industries, Ireland's manufacturing industry is probably on a par with China -- by supplying labor to multinational corporations producing OEM products, its industries basically have the status of an employee.
Although Taiwan was also an OEM specialist at the end of last century, it is no longer employed by other countries. Aside from manufacturing, it has formed partnerships with other multinational corporations.
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co and Quanta Computer Inc are cases in point. Giant Inc, the country's largest bicycle manufacturer, has not only linked itself to the world, but is also operating on an international basis.
Since Taiwan has already entered the phase of innovation and brand marketing, it is strange to think that it should feel inferior to Ireland and look to Ireland to learn how to connect itself to the world.
However, saying that Taiwan has nothing to learn from Ireland is an overstatement. For example, Ireland has a more liberal economic system and a more advanced education system, and these have encouraged multinational corporations to set up factories and employ Irish workers.
But it is debatable if this should be termed "connecting to the world." Maybe the only area where it is better connected to the world than Taiwan is the English language.
I wonder why the government paid so much attention to Siew's strange proposition at the recent conference and why it has decided to implement it. In the 1990s, Siew's attempt to emulate Hong Hong failed. Will his current proposal be any more successful?
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously