The presidential election campaign has entered its final, most intense stage. Both sides not only issue promises to attract votes but also put forward their opinions on the nation's future. Voters will have to use their intelligence to decide whether these opinions stand up to scrutiny.
In the recent dispute over an all-volunteer army, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
It means that 50,000 soldiers would have to be recruited annually for the next four years, though only 160,000 men will turn 20 each year during that period -- which also means that only about 160,000 men will be added to the workforce each year. If the military were to absorb nearly one-third of these men, wouldn't universities and industry experience a shortage of talent, and wouldn't the military be certain to recruit many unsuitable men?
Last month, the Ministry of Defense called for 647 volunteer officers but only managed to recruit 298. How could we possibly succeed if we suddenly had to recruit one-third of all the men turning 20? And do one-third of our young men want to be soldiers for the rest of their lives?
Even if the nation's most popular industries -- the electronics and information industries -- were to try to recruit 50,000 men annually for four years in a row, they would encounter great difficulties.
If one-third of our young men are to be recruited every year, and if they all are to be top-quality soldiers, their salaries will have to be a lot higher than current salaries in the private sector. The government will therefore have an additional NT$200 billion in salary expenditure each year, something that the nation's finances will not be able to bear. The rush to implement an all-volunteer military force is simply an unrealistic policy.
In addition, the pan-blue camp proposes a "1 million PhD" plan to produce 1 million doctorates. Although this makes an attractive slogan, we wouldn't have enough talented people to produce that many PhDs even if we implemented the plan over a 40-year period. The current under-25 population, together with those who will be born over the next 15 years, totals about 7.5 million. This is the demographic pool out of which we will educate our doctoral degree holders over the next 40 years.
If we want to educate 1 million doctoral degree holders, one of every seven or eight people must earn a doctorate. This is impossible. Based on these proportions, 40,000 people would have to earn a doctorate each year, about the same number as earn doctorates each year in the US. But the US population is more than 10 times that of Taiwan, and there are also many foreigners earning doctorates in the US.
Let's examine the question further by examining students' scores in last year's university entrance exams.
If we were to take 15,000 students from the humanities group and 25,000 from the science group and put them on the course to a doctorate, those scoring at least 280 out of 500 in the literature group and those scoring at least 198 in the science group would qualify for the program.
Apart from a few exceptional cases, would students with such low scores be capable of coping with doctoral studies?
What's more, many students above the standard aren't interested in pursuing doctoral studies to begin with.
The blue camp also claims that it will balance the national budget within six years but does not talk about raising taxes. This is another meaningless policy idea. After several years of streamlining government expenditures, there is not much space left for savings in costs.
The nation's tax revenues only account for around 13 percent of GDP, the lowest among major countries. The figure in advanced countries is usually 18 to 20 percent or even higher. It is obvious that if we are to balance the budget, we must raise taxes on a large scale.
The blue camp claims that the government's tax revenues have declined during the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) rule, and that if its presidential ticket is elected, the blue camp will bring about an economic recovery, thereby raising tax revenue on a large scale.
Before 1995, the nation's tax revenues accounted for 18 percent of GDP, but the percentage declined year after year. It fell to 13 percent in 2000 and has remained at that level since. In the first half of 2000, when the KMT still governed the country, both the annual budget and the tax rate were decided by the KMT. That year, economic growth reached 6 percent, higher than in the preceding few years.
Tax revenue as a proportion of GDP in 2000 was thus a result of the tax system and tax reduction policies set by the KMT, and not the result of either the DPP's rule or the economic downturn.
This shows that neither KMT rule nor an economic recovery will automatically lead to an increase in tax revenues as a proportion of GDP.
Hence, in light of the government's tax revenues and its deficit, and the hundreds of billions of NT dollars worth of campaign promises made by the KMT, even the simplest algebra shows that it's impossible for the government to bring its revenues and expenditures into line without a drastic tax increase.
During a debate between the presidential candidates, President Chen Shui-bian (
Lien has not responded to Chen's question.
If Taiwan's entire manufacturing industry is relocated to China or other countries, over 2.5 million workers would lose their jobs.
This is the equivalent of the total number of jobs in the commercial and transportation sectors put together.
In other words, the unemployment caused by the relocation of manufacturing industry can never be absorbed by other industries, and may even cause a chain reaction in other industries (the service sector, for example). Under such circumstances, we really do not understand how Taiwan's economy will improve and how tax revenue will be increased.
We are examining the blue camp's campaign promises in this way mainly because we believe that any policy involving national development has to be legal, reasonable and feasible, and not made recklessly, without foundation in reality.
Politicians should value honesty and credibility. They should not build an imaginary future to attract votes by making promises that will burst like bubbles once they are elected.
Such actions not only deceive the voters but also bankrupt the credibility of the politicians themselves.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS