President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has appointed Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) as convener of a new panel to advise the Presidential Office on financial and economic affairs. But does Siew really have any bold economic vision? Nothing he has said goes beyond the usual free-market mechanisms, relaxation of laws and regulations, a complete free rein for Taiwanese companies to “go west” and forming a common market with China.
Siew’s policies comply with the fashionable pillars of globalization — deregulation, denationalization and minimizing the role of government. That is as far as his vision goes. Can such a vision really get Taiwan through the current economic troubles?
An article in Thursday’s New York Times asks if the US is any longer the global beacon of unfettered free-market capitalism. In bailing out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and American International Group (AIG), the US has not just broken the cardinal principles of the free market, but also undermined the US’ authority in any future efforts to sell the idea of economic globalization to other countries.
In the Times article, US financial historian Ron Chernow said the Bush administration, which stands for free market economy, is now doing things even countries that advocate state intervention would not dare to do. These actions will provide excellent ammunition for opponents of the free market.
Whenever the IMF offers to help countries, it always demands that the country receiving aid implement what the IMF calls “structural adjustments,” including deregulation, market liberalization, unfettered exploitation of natural resources, privatization of public assets and state enterprises, reduced tariffs, social spending cuts, and so on.
For example, during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, when the IMF pledged South Korea US$20 billion to help it weather the storm, one of the “structural adjustments” it demanded as a condition for the loan was that the Seoul government not prop up troubled banks and companies, but rather allow them to be eliminated according to the workings of the free market. The IMF pushed South Korea to open up its domestic market and thoroughly liberalize its economy.
Now that the US is facing its own financial crisis, however, the US government has transgressed the free-market dogma it has been imposing on other countries by resorting to state intervention on a massive scale. Is the nationalization of giant investment and insurance firms not tantamount to what the French call “economic patriotism?” The Times article was highly critical of the US government’s actions.
If the US government finds itself compelled in the final analysis to act counter to the fundamental principles of its own free-market capitalist creed, what authority is left for the idea of economic globalization, which has been in vogue for the past three decades? Even Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain declared that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, “are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street,” while another Times article pointed out that you can’t trumpet the virtues of the free market on the one hand while attempting to protect investors by using state powers to clean up after the greedy gamblers of Wall Street on the other.
As to Ma and Siew — where is their vision? If interventionist policies are necessary for the US government, it proves that an unbridled free-market system cannot work. The Ma government’s policy of economic integration with China is a free-market strategy. Ma and Siew’s real purpose would seem to be political convergence, even if it comes packaged in the guise of economic integration.
Allen Houng is a professor at National Yang Ming University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS