When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) clarified his “6-3-3” economic platform (GDP growth of 6 percent, 3 percent unemployment and per capita income of US$30,000) by saying the targets were to be achieved by 2016, his statement provoked accusations of reneging on election promises and sparked a sell-off on the stock market.
On Sept. 5, he again changed his tune, saying: “The US$30,000 target was always set to be achieved by 2016. The other two targets can be achieved within my first term.”
What Ma is telling us is that while we have to wait until 2016 for the US$30,000, his government will have a go at reaching the other two goals by 2012.
I find myself doubting whether Ma really understands his own policies, or what his repeated adjustments really mean in economic terms.
First, with regard to the economic growth rate, the original target of Ma’s election platform was presumably to maintain an average annual growth rate of 6 percent for four years, rather than to achieve 6 percent growth only in the last year of his term.
Leaving decimal points aside and speaking in terms of simple interest, if GDP were to fall 6 percent for each of the first three years of Ma’s term — thus shrinking 18 percent over the whole three years — only to grow by 6 percent in the fourth year of his term, would that mean that Ma’s economic policy had achieved its target? Of course not, because Taiwan’s economy would have declined by 12 percent during Ma’s presidency. Any president with such a record would surely be kicked out of office.
If, on the other hand, Ma means that he can maintain 6 percent growth on average over four years, then the target is unattainable. Why? Because if the growth rate falls below 6 percent in the first year, then it gets that much harder to achieve 6 percent average growth over the four years.
For the first 12 months for which Ma can be held accountable, that is, from his inauguration on May 20 to May 20 next year, it is already clear that the economy will grow by less than 4 percent. That means that growth would have to be 6.7 percent or more in each of the following three years to reach an overall average of 6 percent. Judging by Taiwan’s economic performance in recent years, GDP will not grow by 6.7 percent annually for those three years.
Second, Ma wants to bring unemployment down below 3 percent, which of course means keeping it below 3 percent on average over the four years, rather than only in the last year. To illustrate the point: if the unemployment rate in each of the first three years of Ma’s presidency were to be 10 percent, and then in the fourth year it were to come down to 3 percent, it would mean that many people were unemployed for the first three years and only found work in the fourth year. In Taiwan’s case that would not be an admirable achievement, but rather a miserable one, so it cannot be what Ma has in mind.
What we have seen, though, over Ma’s first 100 days in government, is that the employment situation keeps deteriorating. The target of bringing unemployment down far enough in the next three years to achieve an average of less than 3 percent for Ma’s term is, therefore, mere wishful thinking.
Third, if Taiwan’s per capita income for this year is US$18,000 and the figure grows by 6 percent each year, then in 2016 it would be US$28,689 — not far short of the promised US$30,000. If, however, the target is not met, then real per capita income would not reach US$30,000 even by the end of a second term in office, 2016.
In conclusion, either Ma is fooling himself or he is trying to fool the rest of us.
Lin Chia is an independent commentator.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS