There is an ongoing debate on whether Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (
But a whole myth surrounds that debate.
The pan-blue camp is using this myth to attack the DPP government's "isolationist" policies in an attempt to push its consistent stance that Taiwan's future lies in China. In doing so, however, they disregard the fact that the capital invested in China accounts for more than 60 percent of Taiwan's total investment abroad.
Official statistics released by the government last year put the figure at 63.9 percent. In addition, Taiwan's exports to China made up 38.6 percent of the nation's exports last year. With such figures, how can there even be talk of isolationist policies? The pan-blue camp is simply using this issue to mobilize political support.
The pan-green camp has also taken advantage of this myth. If we look at the history of Taiwanese investment overseas, we are reminded that the government used to encourage companies and individuals to make indirect investments in China via a third country -- known as the "track two" option -- so that their investments would enjoy economic and trade protection enjoyed by other countries.
Today, although the government has begun, to a certain degree, to open the gates to direct investment in China -- the "track one" option -- many businesses still prefer "track two" because of its financial management and tax advantages. For companies with large projects requiring heavy investment or with a high profile, "track two" is not an option.
As a result, even though the pan-green camp keeps clinging to the "track one" option, domestic capital continues to flow to China via "track two" channels.
From a macroeconomic perspective, the fact that the "track one" option cannot prevent the outflow of capital indicates that the government's capital control capabilities have been eroded by the fast capital movements of globalization. From a public policy perspective, the government should examine the effectiveness of this policy tool.
In this light, Hsieh's proposal to adjust the "track one" mechanism has helped allay the pan-green camp's anxiety over capital outflows and resolve the "myth."
A closer look shows that its cleverness lies in the dynamic management of investment projects on a case-by-case basis, by which a committee or a small team will be formed to examine and decide on individual investment projects in China.
In other words, this mechanism would achieve both the goals of "active management" and "effective opening."
Still, some parts of Hsieh's proposal require clarifications.
How does his proposed committee, or small team, differ from the Ministry of Economic Affairs' Investment Commission and how should their functions be separated?
To deconstruct the legacy of authoritarian rule under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the DPP has followed up on the transition of political power by introducing elements of democratization outside the existing policy-making mechanism and established various commissions, such as the Environmental Protection Administration's environmental evaluation committee and other deliberative committees.
But these have resulted in violations of the democratic principle of balance between power and responsibility.
Lu Chun-wei is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ted Yang
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS