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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS