Sunday, January 29, 2012

DPP Dogma Must Defer to the Knowledge Economy

DPP Dogma Must Defer to the Knowledge Economy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30, 2012

Summary: During his New Year's Day speech, President Ma said that no political party can base its existence solely on memories of the 2/28 Incident. It must also ensure the well-being of future generations. In 1988, martial law was lifted on Taiwan. Babies born that year are now 24 years old. One quarter of the population on Taiwan has no memory of martial law. What these young people need is an opposition party with the courage to confront cross-Strait and international reality.

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP lost. This proves yet again that cross-Strait policy and the economy are the DPP's Achilles Heel. The consensus was that the DPP's recent loss was related to unprecedented public declarations by entrepreneurs large and small regarding the 1992 Consensus. The provincial origin of these entrepreneurs was irrelevant. They included Taiwan and Mainland born entrepreneurs alike.

During the election, the DPP smeared these companies. It characterized them as wealthy conglomerates, and implied that they acquired their wealth illegitimately through government/business collusion. The DPP attempted to depict them as enemies of the people. But calm has returned following the election. The fact that so many entrepreneurs spoke in one voice should give the DPP pause. What these entrepreneurs said was: "Taiwan's economic development cannot sit idly by while the DPP works out its so-called Taiwan consensus."

Consider the big picture. The situation is very different from 30 years ago. Yet the DPP seems oblivious to this fact. Over the next few years, Taiwan has two clear rivals in Asia. One is South Korea. The other is Mainland China. Just before the election, outsiders wanted to know whether cross-Strait relations would be strained and the U.S. would be alarmed by a DPP victory. What was the DPP's response? Mainland China has no alternative. It must talk to Taiwan.

The DPP mistakenly assumed that Taiwan had no competitors. The DPP forgot that while the two sides were wasting time talking, South Korean companies were swooping in and making real progress on the Mainland. Seoul may soon sign an FTA with Beijing. South Korean and Mainland enterprises have progressed by leaps and bounds while the DPP casts about for some sort of "Taiwan consensus." What Taiwan companies want most is not special treatment from Beijing. What they want is peaceful cross-Strait relations and the opportunity to compete with South Korean and Mainland companies on an equal footing. In other words, competitors from South Korea need not waste time and energy overcoming political obstacles on Mainland China, but companies from Taiwan do. This wasted time constitutes an enormous burden on Taiwan's economy.

The DPP's second mistake was to assume that since cross-Strait exchanges will normalize eventually, Direct Links are not terribly urgent. DPP leaders assume that if they hold out longer at this stage, Taipei will gain more leverage during eventual negotiations. But this argument fails to factor in lost economic opportunities. The loss of economic strength is far more detrimental to one's bargaining power in the long run.

Given these logical fallacies, the DPP's greatest weakness in cross-Strait negotiations, remains its obliviousness to the importance of time and to the dynamic nature of industrial production.

The DPP has long lacked an genuinely independent and neutral think tank able to help it understand the issues. The party's think tank fails to stress knowledge and learning. Instead it stresses ideological correctness.

For example, its think tank still stresses "factor price equalization theory." It still maintains that exchanges between Taiwan and the Mainland must lower wages on Taiwan. But as everyone knows, this is outmoded industrial and agricultural society theory from 50 years ago. The world today is a knowledge economy. It competes on the basis of innovation. The international industrial environment is no longer a static arrangement that will lead to factor price equalization between Taiwan and the Mainland. On the contrary, technological innovation has been the rule the world over. The key determinant for economic achievement is "Who is the innovator?" Innovators invariably seize the lion's share of economic benefits.

Will worker salaries on the Mainland catch up to Taiwan? The answer will not be determined by whether we allow cross-Strait trade, but by whether Taiwan is more innovative than the Mainland. The DPP must understand that the best cross-Strait strategy is to maintain Taiwan lead in innovation amidst dynamic competition.

The Mainland is a serious economic threat to Taiwan. But it is a tremendous economic opportunity as well. For Taiwan brands, the Mainland is an essential test market. DPP academics must see the opportunities provided by the Mainland, and not merely the threats. If exchanges with the Mainland enable Taiwan to become a winner in the innovation economy, the DPP should choose an open door policy, instead of trying to apply a padlock to the island.

The DPP's cross-Strait policy needs new thinking, predicated upon a knowledge-based economy. Politically, the DPP should consider recognizing the 1992 consensus. What is the 1992 consensus? The older generation may have a strong sense of Taiwanese identity. They may have indelible memories of martial law oppression. They may feel that the wording of the 1992 consensus diminishes their political ideals. But the wording can also be interpreted as deliberate ambiguity that can buy time for Taiwan. It can enable Taiwan's democracy [Translator's note: strictly speaking this should be "republican government," not "democracy"] and economy to gain strength. It can provide more options for the younger generation.

During his New Year's Day speech, President Ma said that no political party can base its existence solely on memories of the 2/28 Incident. It must also ensure the well-being of future generations.

In 1988, martial law was lifted on Taiwan. Babies born that year are now 24 years old. One quarter of the population on Taiwan has no memory of martial law. What these young people need is an opposition party with the courage to confront cross-Strait and international reality.

民進黨兩岸論述需要知識經濟新思維
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.01.29

蔡英文與民進黨的挫敗,再次證實民進黨的罩門在兩岸和經濟。輿論指出,民進黨此番失利,多少與選前一大群無分本省、外省的大、小企業家們史無前例地表態挺九二共識有關。

競選時,民進黨將這些企業全部抹成財團,說他們在人民的對立面。但選後回歸冷靜,幾位企業家異口同聲的一句話,頗值民進黨深思,那句話就是:「台灣經濟發展,不能枯等台灣共識。」

從大環境來看,現在與三十年前大不相同,但民進黨似乎無此體會。未來數年,台灣在亞洲有兩個明顯的對手,一為韓國,一是中國大陸。當外界質疑「如果民進黨當選,兩岸關係將有些緊張,美國會有些恐慌」時,民進黨的回應竟然是:中國大陸沒有選擇,一定要跟台灣談。

這樣的回應犯了「假設競爭對手不存在」的謬誤。民進黨忘了,當兩岸蹉跎不談時,韓國必趁虛而入,與中國大陸迅速達成實質的進展。不久,韓國可能與大陸FTA已經簽訂,韓國與大陸的企業在台灣尚不知如何凝聚「台灣共識」時早已一躍千里。台灣企業期待的不是大陸讓利的特殊待遇,而是必須能在兩岸關係和平的前提下,與韓國、中國大陸站在立足點的平等而已。換言之,倘若我們的競爭者如韓國,與中國大陸沒有對耗、沒有蹉跎、沒有虛功,而台灣卻有,則這樣的空窗期就是台灣經濟的巨大損失。

民進黨常見的第二個邏輯謬誤是,認為兩岸遲早會正常化往來,譬如三通其實不急,因為遲早會通。他們盤算,站在談判的角度,現階段多堅持一點,就能幫台灣爭取更多。然而,這樣的說法也忘了堅持等待而蹉跎虛耗的時間,會讓台灣喪失更多經濟機遇。一旦經濟實力流失,長期而言,對於整體談判更不利。

綜合以上兩個邏輯謬誤,我們必須指出:民進黨兩岸論述的最大弱點,就是欠缺時間軸線與產業動態的觀念。

民進黨一直缺乏一個獨立的、中性的真正智庫,去協助其分析思考。該黨現在的智庫不是強調智識學理,卻是在強化意識形態。

例如:他們的智庫迄今仍在強調「要素價格均等理論」,認為台灣與中國大陸交往之後,就會拉低台灣工資。殊不知,這是五十年前適用於工業與農業社會的理論。但如今全球已經是知識經濟時代,已經是用創新在競爭。國際產業環境早已不是在定型的技術結構下,使台灣與大陸要素價格漸趨均等。反之,全球各國的產業技術一直不斷的創新演進,決定經濟成果分配的關鍵是「誰是創新者」;創新者永遠能拿走大部分的經濟利益。

簡言之,決定台灣勞工薪水會不會被大陸趕上的關鍵,不是兩岸是否開放,而是台灣與大陸誰是創新者?民進黨應該理解,最好的兩岸策略就是設法讓台灣在動態競爭下,在若干領域成為創新者,從而保持領先。

不容諱言,儘管中國大陸對台灣是嚴重威脅,卻同時也是大好機會。對台灣品牌而言,中國大陸是個練兵不可或缺的市場,如何善用其機會,而不是單純只看見威脅,這是民進黨學者需要自我檢討的。如果與大陸往來,可以讓台灣成為創新經濟時代的贏家,民進黨該選擇的應是開放,而非鎖國。

民進黨的兩岸政策需要知識經濟時代的新思維;在政治上,民進黨也不妨從另一個面向認識九二共識。九二共識是什麼?對台灣主體意識強、戒嚴壓迫印象深刻的老一代來說,可能覺得是其政治理想被九二共識的文字限縮;但事實上,這些文字也可以被解讀為替台灣用模糊爭取時間,使台灣的民主與經濟得以強化,增加未來年輕族群「選項空間」的一種創造性模糊。

馬總統在元旦致詞時說,任何政黨的存在,都不只是為了有二二八歷史記憶者實現他們心目中的理想,而更是為了豐富下一個世代的選擇。

民國七十七年台灣解嚴,那年出生的嬰兒,今年都已經二十四歲了。也就是說台灣已有四分之一的人口沒有戒嚴的記憶,這群年輕的孩子需要的是一個勇敢面對兩岸與國際現實的反對黨。

No comments: