Two weeks have passed since President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) introduced the "active management, effective opening" policy in his New Year's address. Despite this, the agencies in charge of economic policy still do not seem to be able to propose concrete and effective proposals to implement the policy. During a question-and-answer session in the legislature, representatives of these agencies merely offered three major directions.
First, when China-based Taiwanese businesspeople apply for permission to invest in China, they will be required to submit an analysis of their global operations. Second, timely briefings will have to be submitted for investments of more than a certain amount and disputes must be reviewed by international accountants. Third, fines will be increased to deter illegal investment in China.
If these three measures are meant as an implementation of Chen's "active management" policy, we can only say that they are neither very innovative nor very active. They will only lead to complaints from the public, have a negative impact on the welfare of workers and in the end will not achieve what they were intended to accomplish.
The first requirement already exists, and has more or less deteriorated into a creative writing competition. The second, timely reporting, is a fundamental requirement in securities management. Even if a few measures are added, the reliability of these reports is still dubious. The costs of hiring international accountants will be cut by the China-friendly pan-blue camp. Meanwhile, Taiwanese businesspeople will establish contacts with Beijing in an attempt to cause problems for the accounting firms and force them to cooperate or back down.
The third point involves making changes to the Statute Governing the Relations Between the People of the Taiwan and the Mainland Area (
The three measures are therefore superficial and unrealistic. They are an evasive maneuver, rather than something that shows a will to implement changes. In the end, the pan-blue camp's remarks that "you cannot control cross-strait trade even if you try" will come true, and Chen will be blamed for the failure.
In connection to this, National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) pointed out a few days ago that the government's handling of the issue in the past has followed the logic that "market rules do not require managing," and as a result, government agencies have not proposed management measures.
This is a dangerous situation, and saying that there has been no management because market rules are in place is only an excuse. The council may be guilty of dereliction of duty for not having uttered a word about this over the past five years and for not proposing measures to deal with the issue.
But their willingness to stand up now against the government makes us look at them through new eyes. The nation will soon get a new premier and hopefully this will mean that past errors will be corrected -- and that the new government will come up with the innovative and effective measures needed for the "active management" policy.
We believe that an effective "active management" must include the following, at minimum. First, the investment review must incorporate the principle of prioritizing investments in Taiwan. A manufacturer's investments in Taiwan over the past three years must significantly exceed its investments in China. If the public wants companies to be based in Taiwan, then the public is certain to support this, which will make implementation easy and simple.
Second, investment in Taiwan-based research, development and upgrading must be made two important criteria for approving applications to invest in China. Manufacturers that have not upgraded their operations in Taiwan must temporarily put their investments in China on hold. This demand is absolutely certain to facilitate the upgrading of Taiwan's industry.
Third, all or part of the preferential tax treatment firms receive should be terminated for every manufacturer whose production in China exceeds a certain proportion of the value of its production in Taiwan. The resulting increase in tax income should be diverted to the improvement of the domestic investment environment in order to reward manufacturers that prioritize their investment in Taiwan.
Last year, the nation's overseas production reached 30 percent of overall production. Ninety percent of that production was in China. Accumulated investment in China by Taiwanese businesses is not US$46.8 billion as the Ministry of Economic Affairs claims, but US$280 billion. If the government still treats China as it does the US or Japan or other friendly nations and blindly relies on free-market principles to regulate that relationship -- while continuing to ignore Chen's instructions in the same way as before -- Taiwan will face an unavoidable crisis.
The new Cabinet's ability to make timely adjustments to its approach to managing China-bound investment will be critical in determining whether Taiwan's de facto independence can continue. The nation has no time to waste, and we hope the new Cabinet will direct all its efforts toward developing the economy and creating a sustainable existence for Taiwan.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS