When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) clarified his “6-3-3” economic platform (GDP growth of 6 percent, 3 percent unemployment and per capita income of US$30,000) by saying the targets were to be achieved by 2016, his statement provoked accusations of reneging on election promises and sparked a sell-off on the stock market.
On Sept. 5, he again changed his tune, saying: “The US$30,000 target was always set to be achieved by 2016. The other two targets can be achieved within my first term.”
What Ma is telling us is that while we have to wait until 2016 for the US$30,000, his government will have a go at reaching the other two goals by 2012.
I find myself doubting whether Ma really understands his own policies, or what his repeated adjustments really mean in economic terms.
First, with regard to the economic growth rate, the original target of Ma’s election platform was presumably to maintain an average annual growth rate of 6 percent for four years, rather than to achieve 6 percent growth only in the last year of his term.
Leaving decimal points aside and speaking in terms of simple interest, if GDP were to fall 6 percent for each of the first three years of Ma’s term — thus shrinking 18 percent over the whole three years — only to grow by 6 percent in the fourth year of his term, would that mean that Ma’s economic policy had achieved its target? Of course not, because Taiwan’s economy would have declined by 12 percent during Ma’s presidency. Any president with such a record would surely be kicked out of office.
If, on the other hand, Ma means that he can maintain 6 percent growth on average over four years, then the target is unattainable. Why? Because if the growth rate falls below 6 percent in the first year, then it gets that much harder to achieve 6 percent average growth over the four years.
For the first 12 months for which Ma can be held accountable, that is, from his inauguration on May 20 to May 20 next year, it is already clear that the economy will grow by less than 4 percent. That means that growth would have to be 6.7 percent or more in each of the following three years to reach an overall average of 6 percent. Judging by Taiwan’s economic performance in recent years, GDP will not grow by 6.7 percent annually for those three years.
Second, Ma wants to bring unemployment down below 3 percent, which of course means keeping it below 3 percent on average over the four years, rather than only in the last year. To illustrate the point: if the unemployment rate in each of the first three years of Ma’s presidency were to be 10 percent, and then in the fourth year it were to come down to 3 percent, it would mean that many people were unemployed for the first three years and only found work in the fourth year. In Taiwan’s case that would not be an admirable achievement, but rather a miserable one, so it cannot be what Ma has in mind.
What we have seen, though, over Ma’s first 100 days in government, is that the employment situation keeps deteriorating. The target of bringing unemployment down far enough in the next three years to achieve an average of less than 3 percent for Ma’s term is, therefore, mere wishful thinking.
Third, if Taiwan’s per capita income for this year is US$18,000 and the figure grows by 6 percent each year, then in 2016 it would be US$28,689 — not far short of the promised US$30,000. If, however, the target is not met, then real per capita income would not reach US$30,000 even by the end of a second term in office, 2016.
In conclusion, either Ma is fooling himself or he is trying to fool the rest of us.
Lin Chia is an independent commentator.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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