The year-end countdown is on. Many major events with far-reaching effects have occurred this year. In Asia, Taiwan’s presidential election led to a transition of government power that has changed the cross-strait dynamic; China has been stirring things up in the South China Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a ruling on the Philippines’ case against China in their dispute; and the US presidential election ended with a result that will affect every nation in the region, adding new variables to political and economic relationships.
In this fast-changing environment, strong leadership has become necessary for any government that wants to win public support and calm voters.
Most Taiwanese probably started pinning their hopes and expectations on President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her team on the evening of Jan. 16 rather than when she was sworn in on May 20, hoping that the Democratic Progressive Party’s return to power would help the nation regain the confidence it has lost over the past several years.
In the Economist’s “The World in 2017,” Tsai penned an article titled “Turning Taiwan Into a Tiger Again.” Taiwanese are waiting for the president to tell them how she will go about doing that.
For a nation, external war is less frightening than a lack of domestic leadership. When US president-elect Donald Trump reiterated his intention to scrap the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), he threw a curveball to the 11 nations that had already signed the agreement.
In response, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski at the APEC summit in Lima last month that he would continue to push for the TPP. Both houses of the Japanese National Diet have passed relevant laws and completed the ratification process.
Faced with new uncertainty, Abe unambiguously told lawmakers during a visit to the Diet before the vote that, regardless of whether the TPP takes effect, the domestic budget set aside for dealing with complementary measures addressing TPP membership would still be implemented, because they are necessary for Japan to boost its agricultural industry, increase agricultural exports and support the overseas expansion of small and medium-sized enterprises. This is clear and strong leadership.
While Japan’s ruling coalition holds a majority in both houses, Abe as party leader still went to the legislature to clarify things, showing that effective communication includes making decisions, addressing problems, keeping information transparent and shouldering responsibility.
If these things are done well, one’s own party, other political parties and the public will be persuaded and it will be possible to build collective support for government policy.
Looking at Taiwan’s government using the same example — the TPP — Tsai has said that Asia must fulfill its role as a leader of economic integration, and that Taiwan must continue to negotiate and expand bilateral trade agreements. The first point takes aim at Japan and ASEAN and depends on how the government follows up with practical diplomacy. The second point involves the government’s mastery of the art of negotiation in trade talks, as well as its ability to respond to domestic concerns over market deregulation.
However, the public still has not seen any practical action by the government to back its words and lay down the goals, steps and discipline that a modern government should have.
In the legislature, the opposition has taken political steps to make it clear that it will oppose deregulation of US pork imports and Japanese food imports once the government engages in bilateral trade talks next year.
The question is whether the government is ready to respond to this, because if it cannot handle these fundamental issues, any mention of bilateral trade talks is just that: empty talk.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is well aware that the US’ position is “no pork, no talk,” and it is also using Japanese food imports as leverage. After all, even former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said before he stepped down that when dealing with the international community, you always have to be reasonable.
In short, Taiwan should hurry to allow food imports from the five Japanese prefectures neighboring the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster. Japan is implementing point of origin and radiation certification, and Japanese food product inspections work well, so there is no need to maintain the import ban, lest Japan think that Taiwan is being unreasonable.
While the government plans to only allow imports from four prefectures surrounding Fukushima, the KMT sent men in black to disrupt public hearings and is mobilizing the public to place follow-up hearings under siege.
It is like Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said: This is a scientific issue, and the main issue is whether the government’s safety inspections of food imports is comprehensive.
The government should do all it can to promote transparency in its decisionmaking process and offer explanations without being concerned over the trouble it might cause. From a perspective of international talks, this is a question of what Taiwan can manage to get in exchange.
Nevertheless, there are signs that as the government has run into problems, it is resorting to the old strategy of procrastinating in the hope that things might change. If this is the approach the it takes when dealing with domestic issues, how will it persuade the public that it has the courage and insight required to deal with the international community?
If the government is to turn Taiwan into a tiger again, it will not do so by talking and drawing up outlines: It is a fundamental matter of being able to handle matters the right way on a daily basis and continuously improving that ability. A few clever and correct actions can accumulate and build confidence, making the public willing to go along and create the force required to bring about change — only by taking action will there be progress. This is what differentiates a fierce tiger from a sickly old cat.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS