Talk about a “February crisis” began in China. Since the Lunar New Year falls in late January this year and because of the large number of companies that have closed or are closing as a result of the economic crisis, next month may begin with a wave of unemployment sweeping across China causing social instability.
In addition to sending the unemployment rate into a double-digit percentage, the economic crisis is also affecting the middle classes, who have acted as a buffer between China’s privileged and lower classes. Their addition to the ranks of unemployed will have a direct impact on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule. The upshot of this is that since November the CCP has done its best to help the middle classes ride out the storm by propping up the stock market and the real estate market. These attempts include trying to push the Shanghai composite index to somewhere between 2,400 points and 3,000 points to help the middle classes who entered the market that reached its height of 6,124 points around the time of the CCP’s 17th national congress in the fall of 2007.
However, although Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has spent 4 trillion yuan (US$586 billion) trying to prop up the market, the index has barely increased from its low of 1,678 points in November and is still languishing below the 1,900-point mark.
In early November, Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang (曾蔭權) warned that the economy would slow down this year. Before that, a wave of bankruptcies occurred among Hong Kong-invested businesses in the Pearl River Delta, a situation that is likely to deteriorate further after the Lunar New Year.
In late October, Li Ka-shing (李嘉誠), Hong Kong’s richest man, stopped making new investments anywhere in the world. He recently also sold his shares in Bank of China and Bank of America Corp is selling part of its stake in China Construction Bank Ltd. The question is, is this a foreboding of more to come.
During an interview with the Washington Post on Dec. 9, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said: “The idea is not to encourage our people to invest on mainland China, because the investment climate over there isn’t as good as it was before ... So the idea is not to encourage investment over there, but instead to make Taiwan’s own investment climate better.”
In 2007, during the presidential election campaign, I warned about the restrictions on foreign businesses included in China’s Foreign Investment Industrial Guidance Catalogue (外商投資產業指導目錄) and now Ma talks about the investment environment as not being “as good as it was before.” The man has some nerve.
Compared with China and Hong Kong, Taiwan’s government is being optimistic if it thinks issuing consumer vouchers is enough to solve the problem and that China can be relied upon to solve all the other economic problems. Apart from speeding up Taiwan’s opening up to China, all Ma is doing is running around performing his “spending show.”
I don’t think there is much risk that people will save their consumer vouchers for their historical value. It is pretty clear that they are meant for spending, so there is no need for Ma to run around promoting their use. What worries the public more is any unexpected problems that may occur because of the government’s arrogance and inability. The only reason Ma is promoting the vouchers and encouraging spending is because he wants to create an image of himself as “Ma the Savior.”
The problem is that, whether it is the consumer vouchers or the “special state affairs” fund, the money comes from hard working Taiwanese taxpayers, not from Ma’s own pocket.
Ma’s spending is not only incapable of stimulating the public’s willingness to spend, but it also leaves an unpleasant feeling that he is trying to show off his own wealth. Ma and many of his top officials have savings in excess of NT$10 million and they also have other funds, shares and real estate. How could they understand the plight of the average citizen or the unemployed?
This spending act does nothing to stop a recent spate of deaths from starvation during cold weather, suicide and murder, or arrogant attitudes toward Taiwan’s sovereignty and living standards.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS