Facing a seventh consecutive monthly increase in the youth unemployment rate, the Chinese government on Aug. 15 announced that it would suspend publication of the figures. The move has raised international concerns about the country’s worsening, nontransparent economy.
The unemployment rate among those aged 16 to 24 in China was 17.3 percent in January, 18.1 percent in February, 19.6 percent in March, 20.4 percent in April, 20.8 percent in May and a record 21.3 percent in June, meaning more than one in five young Chinese did not have a job. Chinese academics even estimated that the actual unemployment rate was 46 percent, because young people in rural townships had not been surveyed. The Chinese National Bureau of Statistics said it stopped releasing the youth unemployment rate due to a need to “optimize the survey approach,” but did not say when it would start releasing the figures again.
It is not the first time Beijing has restricted access to official data it considers unflattering or politically embarrassing. Since 2017, China has also stopped sharing its fertility rate data. A Chinese media report recently gave a rare insight into the country’s demographic crisis, saying its fertility rate last year plunged to a record low of 1.09. That would worsen the country’s negative population growth and shrinking labor force. A Bloomberg report said that Chinese figures crucial to foreign investors have become unavailable, including bond transactions, corporate registration data, land sales, currency reserves, COVID-19 deaths and academic information, while politicians’ biographies can be erased, just like when China’s foreign minister was abruptly removed from his role without explanation last month.
By covering up unpleasant statistics, Beijing intends to blind its disillusioned citizens and pacify discontented young Chinese, especially as such information could be considered a threat to its rule. The Chinese government has even removed several prominent writers’ social media posts on the country’s unemployment rate or stock market.
These moves suggest that crucial benchmark data can be highly politicized in China, and that there could be more “ bad news” regarding the country’s economy.
While US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo this week met her Chinese counterpart to keep communications open, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan criticized China for reducing access to its economic data and cracking down on firms in China that had been sharing such data, calling its behavior “irresponsible.”
The lack of economic transparency has partially contributed to foreign investors’ doubts about China, as Chinese State Administration of Foreign Exchange data showed that direct foreign investment to China in the second quarter of this year had declined 87 percent year-on-year — the largest drop on record. Taiwan’s investment in ASEAN markets in the first half of this year surpassed the volume bound for China, indicating another shift.
The Mainland Affairs Council has warned Taiwanese traveling to China to refrain from talking about sensitive issues the Chinese government is trying to cover up to avoid being detained.
However, Taiwan still needs to be cautious and confront the flow of young Taiwanese going to China to work and study, especially as Beijing is offering thousands of job opportunities via a state-backed work program, aiming to recruit young Taiwanese talent for its “united front” purposes.
Some Chinese social media users have mocked their government, saying: “Covering your mouth and closing your eyes, can that really solve the problem?”
Yet Beijing’s freedom of information curbs not only makes cross-strait exchanges meaningless, but increase the risks Taiwanese and all foreigners could face in China.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS