The government has decided to hand out consumer vouchers to every citizen, including the wealthy. It is the first policy of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) to receive more praise than criticism.
If the scheme had taken the form of a tax rebate, the policy would have only served the rich. If the wealthy were excluded from the scheme, those able to consume would not participate and most vouchers would be exchanged for cash at a lower rate. This would not stimulate consumer spending and would be considered part of a social welfare program at best.
Given that household sizes vary, it would have been unfair if the distribution process had been based on households. Distributing the vouchers to individuals was the correct decision. Although the proposed budget of NT$82.9 billion (US$2.5 billion) will not necessarily boost consumption, it could reduce public resentment.
The most serious problem facing the country is its withering consumer market. Since soaring unemployment is attributed mainly to businesses closures, the government should give first priority to stimulating consumer spending. It is still questionable whether the vouchers will be able to rescue the economy. After all, some people might convert their vouchers into cash and save the money.
The real purpose of the vouchers is to reduce social resentment. Everybody knows that the government is trying to save the economy, although the plan, despite the multi-billion dollar budget, will serve more as an advertisement than a real stimulus.
The Ma government’s biggest weakness is that it does not know how to calm public complaints. This is the first time it has found a way to effectively reduce public dissatisfaction, but unfortunately there are many more complaints for the administration to work on.
Most Taiwanese are finding it hard to make ends meet, but they never consider the reasons behind that fact and only want someone to take responsibility. When a disaster happens, natural or man-made, the public always expects someone to take responsibility.
Ma believes that his administration is not in the wrong, and therefore should not be held accountable for the economic meltdown, and this has added more fuel to public indignation.
When the Pachang Creek (八掌溪) tragedy happened in 2000, then-vice premier Yu Shyi-kun stepped down to take political responsibility. Former minister of education Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) did the same when an auditorium roof collapsed at National Feng-yuan Senior High School in 1983. When a political appointee takes office, he or she should be prepared to step down, unlike civil service bureaucrats. If Ma continues to treat political officials as civil officials, it will be hard to reduce public resentment.
Pan-blue politicians and supporters do not like former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Still, he managed to deal with political officials in ways Ma cannot do. Some pan-green individuals have complained that Chen was too ruthless because whenever something happened, he would sacrifice his ministers or aides.
Political appointees don’t always step down because they made a mistake but rather to take responsibility to help reduce public anger. Where Chen’s concern was the reaction of voters and using his administration as a tool to win supporters, Ma’s only concern is his administration and the hope that it will be as efficient as possible.
Grassroots officials should take care of their staff in order to bring out the best in the team. Ma has forgotten that he is responsible for the entire nation, not just his administration. Three Cabinet officials have been impeached by the Control Yuan, but the premier said they were only reprimanded. There are only two kinds of punishment for political officials — discharge and reprimand. So for a political appointee to be reprimanded is serious, no matter what the premier said. Ma’s protection of his administration will only make the public think that all he really cares about is his team.
Ma asked public officials not to accept wreaths and to eat lunch boxes rather than lunching at restaurants. Many people also asked that he not contain consumer spending. The government’s decision to issue consumer vouchers means that it has understood the economics of consumption. Let’s just hope it will start understanding other issues as well.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor at National Sun Yat-sen University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS