The economy is key to a country’s survival. A government’s duty in this area is not a matter of simply striving for better economic figures, but, more importantly, it is to make sure that the public as a whole gets to share in the fruits of a prosperous economy.
After the second transfer of political power, from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in 2008, the nation has made some economic progress — despite Ma’s failure to realize his “6-3-3” election campaign promise to achieve annual GDP growth of 6 percent, annual per capita income of US$30,000 and unemployment below 3 percent.
However, standing in stark contrast to this economic growth is the increasing polarization of Taiwanese society, which is tearing up the foundation upon which communities are built: mutual trust. The KMT is the main culprit in this situation.
Not long ago, Ma said that the gap between the nation’s rich and poor was not very serious compared with that of other countries. However, what happens if one compares the Taiwan of today to the Taiwan of the past?
According to the Ministry of Finance’s income data, the richest Taiwanese were 70 times richer than the poorest Taiwanese in 2009. By 2011, they were 94 times more wealthy, the data show. This is one of the problems that have resulted from the government’s negligence.
A second problem is that the government follows double standards in how it treats the public and how it treats large corporations.
The average person has to work very hard and finds it next to impossible to get any tax deductions, while the operators of large corporations who have good political connections can buy expensive mansions with fully financed bank loans. In addition, if these conglomerates should import and use tainted raw materials, the government helps them to find ways out of the ensuing scandal.
Comparing these two realities evokes a feeling of unfairness, and this feeling can in turn lead to hatred, anger and distrust. What is worse is that, based on rational economic considerations, society could deteriorate in the direction of opportunism as increasingly more people curry favor with the rich and powerful.
Although renowned economist Adam Smith sang the praises of the free-market economy, he also emphasized the importance of morals. However, he said that morality depends not only on self-discipline, but also on the government fulfilling its responsibility to provide controls. However, in today’s Taiwan, the government is negligent of its duties and Taiwanese have to suffer the consequences.
To save the nation from this crisis, Taiwanese do not only have to fight for economic development, they must also fight to create a fair economy.
Only by following the principle: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” helping disadvantaged groups support themselves independently and by seeing to it that the government thoroughly implements the rule of law, will members of the public have a sense of fairness and be willing to trust the government and each other. If all these things can be brought about, then the Taiwanese community will grow closer and stronger, as it confronts the challenges posed by globalization.
Chen Tzu-yu is the vice director of the Democratic Progressive Party’s Department of Social Movement.
Translated by Eddy Chang
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS