Su and Tsai's Worrisome Insular Economic Perspective

Su and Tsai's Worrisome Insular Economic Perspective
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2011

The DPP has just held its second presidential primary debate. But the party's candidates have yet to offer the far-sighted national policies the public expects. The public has however, seen Su and Tsai Ing-wen waffle and flip-flop on economic policy. Tsai Ing-wen's "local economy," and Su Tseng-chang's "fortunate nation" are shot through with introversion and reaction. Do they really not know they are leading Taiwan down the garden path?

During the previous primary debate, Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly touted her international vision, During the latest primary debate however, she suddenly reverted to "local economy" thinking. She declared that Taiwan must head down an entirely different developmental path. It must adopt a nativist orientation. This was truly surprising. Tsai Ing-wen's so-called local economy, calls for the development of industries with local characteristics. It calls for young people to turn their creative energies to rural towns and villages, and increasing job opportunities. In fact, this idea is not new. Tsai Ing-wen lacks an adequate understanding of Taiwan's local economy. Otherwise she would have known that many regions have begun doing just this, and that the results have been exemplary. Young people have been returning home in a steady stream for years.

In recent years, Taiwan's economy has reached a bottleneck, mainly due to flip-flopping over government policies and government controls. This is not a problem that can be solved by chanting political mantras such as "local economy." Besides, problems with the local economy are rightly the responsibility of county chiefs, city mayors, and village chiefs. They are more able to respond to local conditions. They are closer to local needs. A national leader needs a broader and more far-sighted perspective. Tsai Ing-wen alas, cannot see the forest for the trees. She imagines she has offered us a grand vision of how to rule a nation. In reality, she has put the cart before the horse. Tsai Ing-wen is either unfamilar with Taiwan's local economy, or she simply cannot see beyond the island of Taiwan. Either is cause for concern.

Imagine applying Tsai Ing-wen's so-called local economy model to Seattle, Seattle is an aerospace, information technology, and biotechnology center. Many world-renowned multinational companies have set up factories there. In short, Seattle is an international city. It simply does not fit into Tsai Ing-wen's "nativist" framework. It does not have an economy rooted in the sale of agricultural products or on local tourism. People from many nations work there. Together they have achieved prosperity and excellence. Seattle may be Tsai Ing-wen's image of paradise. But if her head is filled exclusively with thoughts of "localization" and "nativism," how can she possibly set foot within such a realm?

Su Tseng-chang's economic perspective is not quite as narrow and constipated. He supports deregulation. He supports incentives for investment. But alas, he also demands all sorts of measures to "redistribute the wealth." He commits a string of logical contradictions impossible to justify. He resembles Tsai Ing-wen in certain respects. During the two primary debates he mentioned industrial policy. Both times the examples he cited concerned local agriculture and local fisheries. The first concerned angelfish. The other concerned mushrooms. Angelfish and mushrooms are indeed examples of "native" Taiwan industries. But Su has to incorporate a much broader range of technologies and industries into his economic framework. Does he really believe that reverting to "nativism," to farming and fishing, can bolster Taiwan's economy and ensure its future development?

Six decades ago, our forebears created Taiwan's economic miracle. Taiwan lacked resources. Only by aggressively developing trade and import substitution industrialization, were they able to ensure Taiwan's economic survival. Six decades later, Taiwan has become an economic giant. DPP leaders not only do not understand how to help this giant grow, they actually want to shrink its domain, and reduce the amount of room it has for growth. Is forcing Taiwan to revert to farming and fishing the only way to ensure a better tomorrow?

Hsu Hsin-liang has reiterated the need to "go west." He may have oversimplifed the problem. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are ahead in the polls. All they can think about is "nativism." All they can think about is farming and fishing. They dare not take a long hard look at their surroundings, at the world outside. Their attitude is a far more serious problem. When Chen Shui-bian was in office, he knew enough to champion such projects as "Two Trillion, Twin Stars," and "Big Investment, Great Warmth." Many of these projects were empty boasts. But at least he knew the government had to take the lead. Su and Tsai have eight years of experience in office. Yet overnight, they would overturn and discard their own important economic achievements. They would force Taiwan to revert to what it was six decades ago. That would be a giant step backwards. Su Tseng-chang has promised rosy elderly long term care and child care policies. But given his feeble economic program, who is going to pay for all his welfare programs?

Youth unemployment and industrial restructuring are problems the ruling and opposition parties must solve together. But problems cannot be solved by burying one's head in the sand. Nor should policy makers prescribe voodoo economic cures. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen may defy the wisdom of the people. But they must not be allowed to trample over six decades of hard-won economic prosperity. Tsai Ing-wen. Su Tseng-chang. Do your homework. Then come back.

蘇蔡的島國經濟觀令人憂心
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.15

民進黨總統初選第二場政見會，人們期待聽到的宏觀國政藍圖依舊闕如，卻更看出蘇貞昌和蔡英文在經濟論述上的左支右絀。蔡英文的「在地經濟」，蘇貞昌的「幸福國家」，均充滿內向、退縮的心態，他們知道自己要把台灣帶到何方嗎？

上次政見會蔡英文一再誇稱自己如何具有國際視野，這次政見會她卻突然一躍退回「在地經濟」的格局，宣稱台灣發展軸線應該全面「翻轉」，朝向地方催化，令人訝異。蔡英文所謂的在地經濟，是指要發展地方特色產業，結合年輕人的創意，把活力導回農村鄉鎮，並增加就業。這種想法其實一點也不新奇，蔡英文若對台灣在地經濟有足夠的了解，她應知許多地方早已在著手這樣的工作，且卓然有成，多年來返鄉青年也絡繹於途。

事實上，台灣近年經濟發展遇上的瓶頸，主要在政策的反覆與管制，那絕非「在地經濟」這樣的政治符咒所能打通。再說，在地經濟的問題其實更適合交給縣市長，或鄉鎮村長層級去推動，較能因地制宜，並貼近地方需求。一個國家領導人要思考的，應該是更宏觀、更具未來瞻矚的大前景；而蔡英文卻把她的眼光放在如此枝微末節之處，還當成其治國大政宣揚，委實是本末倒置。這不論是反映了蔡英文對台灣本土經濟的陌生，或者她的眼光超越不了台灣的島國格局，都讓人憂慮。

以蔡英文所稱的在地經濟典範西雅圖市為例，該市是航太、資訊及生化等高科技產業的重鎮，全球許多知名跨國公司在此設廠。簡單地說，西雅圖市是一個極開放的國際化城市，絕非如蔡英文所勾勒的「本土樣板」，也不是一個販售農特產或標榜在地觀光的在地經濟；不同國家的人在此工作，共同成就它的繁榮富庶和高水準。如果蔡英文心中的桃花源藍圖是西雅圖，但她的眼光卻只圍繞著「在地」打轉，腳下如何到達得了那個境界？

相形之下，蘇貞昌的經濟觀點雖不像蔡英文那麼狹窄與扁平，他贊成政策鬆綁、鼓勵投資，但隨即卻又主張用各種行政干預來達成公平分配，其間邏輯不時出現斷裂和矛盾，難以自圓其說。與蔡英文相似的是，他在兩次政見會中提到產業政策時，所舉的事例都是本土的農漁業，一是神仙魚，一是金針菇。這一魚一菇，確實是台灣本土企業現代化的典範；但如果蘇貞昌不能把更高、更廣泛的科技和產業融入他的經濟發展架構，他真認為光靠著回歸本土、回歸農漁，台灣經濟就能找到安身立命、發展成長之所嗎？

一甲子之前，締造台灣經濟起飛奇蹟的前輩們都知道：台灣資源缺乏，只有全力發展貿易，創造進口替代，才能掌握自己生存的命脈。一甲子之後，台灣已成為一個經濟小巨人，而民進黨的領導人不知如何讓小巨人長得更大，卻竟然想要自我限縮台灣的伸展空間；難道台灣要重回農漁業時代，才會有美好的明天？

許信良一味反覆強調「大膽西進」，未免過於簡化問題。但蘇貞昌和蔡英文這兩位民調遙遙領先者，目光只盯著本土、盯著農漁業，卻不敢抬起頭來觀察四鄰、瞭望國際，恐怕才是更嚴重的問題。試想，陳水扁執政時，尚且知道要提出「兩兆雙星」、「大投資、大溫暖」等訴求，雖然其間不少項目灌水，但至少它清楚政府該扮演火車頭角色；孰料蘇蔡兩人積八年執政之經驗，一夕推翻毀棄了自己推動的種種重大經建計畫不說，竟還想將台灣帶回一甲子之前，這恐怕才是大倒退。且看蘇貞昌提出洋洋灑灑的老人長照及幼兒全面托育政策，相對於他薄弱的經濟論述，誰來支付這些社福開銷，不都成了無解之謎。

台灣的青年失業和產業轉型，是朝野必須共同面對的問題，但解決之道絕不是把頭埋進沙堆裡，更不需要決策者亂開巫毒經濟藥方。蘇貞昌和蔡英文可以藐視民眾的智慧，卻絕不能踐踏台灣一甲子的經濟根基，請多下點功夫再來吧！