Credit cards are relatively new in Taiwan. Thus, for many -- particularly the naive and inexperienced -- the ability to buy now and pay later is an attractive temptation.
The slow but steady accumulation of debt goes unnoticed amidst the immediate gratification of being able to enjoy consumable items. Eventually, of course, reality sets in and the piper must be paid.
That same naivete or expectation that the bill can always be passed on is evident in discussions on cross-strait relations. A friend recently made the comment: "Don't you think Taiwan would be stronger if we decided to join China? Think of all the jobs in Shanghai."
But everything has its price tag. The bullying threat of China's missiles coupled with the vision of a booming Shanghai seems to be like the offer of an unlimited credit card.
But, however rich Shanghai may appear and whatever opportunities it offers, it all comes at a price.
What price? I won't discuss the obvious and real loss of the values of democracy, a free press, freedom of speech, movement and religion.
These can be summed up with the saying, "You don't know what you've got until it's gone."
No, I want to simply look at more practical matters that touch the pocket book.
I will examine three in particular: the quality of health care, the quality of the environment and the most efficient use of tax dollars.
Overall, the quality of Taiwan's health care is excellent. Over 94 percent of the population is covered under the Bureau of National Health Insurance's (BNHI) scheme and costs are minimal compared to the US and most other countries.
So inexpensive is healthcare here that many Taiwanese living in the US readily bear the cost of a flight back to Taiwan to enjoy the inexpensive hospital costs.
With a growing budget deficit, the BNHI has reduced the number of reimbursable drugs covered under its plan.
The general populace naturally complained. But in actuality the cost per doctor's visit and prescription has only gone up by about US$5.
This is not an extreme burden but think of the costs if Taiwan had to share the gargantuan burden of providing the same standard of healthcare to the 1.3 billion people in China.
Second is environment. The quality of Taiwan's environment is far below the quality of its healthcare.
There is much to be done, and the cost of that will be high. Nevertheless there have been successes such as cleaning up Ai River in Kaohsiung. Look, however, across the Strait. Many of the world's most polluted cities are in China; likewise polluted rivers are in such abundance that even good drinking water is scarce.
If Taiwan finds it hard to put its money into cleaning up its own environmental problems, do the unificationists think they will get a free pass on the burden of cleaning up pollution in China? Who will pay the bill?
A third area is the effective use of tax dollars for the greater benefit of the country. Taiwan's education system is good but in need of continuous upgrading and improvement.
The chance to attend a university is becoming more and more available. When once there were only enough openings for less than 30 percent of the students who took the Joint Entrance Exam, now over 90 percent can find places.
In China a billion people do not have access to higher education. Who will foot that bill?
As for military expenditures, in Taiwan, the pan-blue dominated legislature has consistently rejected an arms bill on the grounds that such money should be used for more appropriate local projects.
Yet these same unificationists ironically promote joining a country that spends billions on its military (including the 700-plus missiles that it aims at Taiwan). Does the pan-blue camp think that Taiwan's taxpayers will get a free pass on the burden of that military buildup? Who will pay the bill?
Does anyone care to speculate on who would be sucked dry if a small prosperous country the size of Taiwan were taken over by a giant the size of China?
In the early 1990s, it became permissible and fashionable for Taiwanese nationals to go to China to visit family members. Many who took advantage of this returned to Taiwan disillusioned. They were welcomed in China, but soon they were besieged by the grasping hands of cousins they never imagined they had, all expecting gifts.
Put simply, if Taiwan faced a takeover by China (hostile or otherwise), whose pocket do you think the over 1 billion grasping hands would be reaching into?
Businessmen of course look only at immediate personal profit, and pan-blue unificationists wonder how they can profit from the takeover. But the bills will still have to be paid. They will mount with interest and always be passed on to the common man.
Credit-card companies offer free gifts to entice customers into their money pit. Once in, the naive find they struggle to make the monthly payments. High interest rates continue and the bills keep mounting.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS