The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) looks over its decades of governing and the so-called "Taiwan miracle" -- the transformation into a strong economy and democracy -- and pats itself on the back.
It has an elitist attitude and deceives itself into believing Taiwan's success story was somehow all the result of its wisdom and foresight.
Based on that view, it has not changed its belief that such a regime is justified. It gives orders from the top and proposes projects with grandiose titles: the Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center (APROC), an airline hub connecting Northeast and Southeast Asia; the dual purpose operations center for domestic and foreign enterprises; the "cross-strait common market," the global value-added services center; and the global innovation center.
The KMT has dominated the discussion of such issues. But ironically, in spite of a constant string of proposals and impressive project titles, its economic strategy boils down to one principle: complete reliance upon the US and China.
In the years before the KMT lost the presidential office, its economic policies focused on two areas: the development of the electronic information industry with a focus on manufacturing and the APROC.
The latter was a policy proposed by KMT vice presidential candidate Vincent Siew (
To bolster the electronics and information technology sectors, the KMT allowed the manufacturing industry to move operations abroad to gain cheaper access to land, capital and laborers. But the industry focused entirely on original equipment manufacturing of hardware, while the innovative integrated-circuit and software sectors, which focused on research and development, were grossly underestimated.
Companies working in these sectors had difficulty listing themselves on the stock market and gaining access to Hsinchu Science Park and were usually excluded from tax incentives.
The government's priorities back then resulted in an economic reliance on technology from upstream companies and orders from downstream companies. There was no effort to promote independent technologies or brands.
As for Siew's APROC, which was copied from Hong Kong, the KMT tried to used Taiwan's location to build a "greater China" economic zone.
KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (
The "greater China" approach was based on the erroneous judgment that the nation had gone from reliance on the US economy to reliance on the Chinese economy. To compete in the Chinese market, the argument went, Taiwan's manufacturing industry must have access to the same cheap Chinese laborers; the service industry must ape Hong Kong and focus on China; and Taiwan must serve as a door for China's imports and exports.
This is the approach that the KMT is promoting even today.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a different vision for continued economic transformation. That vision is based on creating technology.
From building up brands to developing the service and cultural sectors, the nation's economy must seek its future in innovation. The key is research and development. Industries will gradually gain in independence by innovating and marketing their developments.
The economic policies offered by the DPP and KMT reflect the difference between independence and dependence. They represent two completely different economic maps for the growth of the nation's industries. They are the difference between looking over the horizon to create a global center for logistics and innovation or limiting Taiwan to a "greater China" economic zone.
Hong Kong is an excellent example. It is a door to the Chinese market and some have called it the hub of East Asia. But Hong Kong's success remains limited to taking advantage of its location. It has capitalized on its position to become what it is today, but failed to innovate and grow in other directions. Siew's vision is exactly this: Taiwan, another Asia-Pacific center.
There is no doubt that Siew is right in one aspect. The nation would be foolish not to take advantage of geography to grow. But Taiwan is more than the "city economy" that is Hong Kong. Taiwan has long had global ambitions. Instead of vying to compete within the region, the nation's economy needs to aim for competing globally. Our ambitions should be much higher than simply hoping China and other countries continue to transit their goods through here.
Taiwan and Hong Kong have taken different paths for centuries and should not start mirroring each other now. The pan-blue camp keeps warning against policies it labels as "isolationism," but its strategy would undermine the nation's strides as a global player and turn it into a regional player.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS