Tsai Ing-wen, Still "Hollow" After All These Years

Tsai Ing-wen, Still "Hollow" After All These Years
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 14, 2014

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly referred to the reconstruction of Kaohsiung. Following the Kaohsiung gas explosion, the green camp obviously wanted to point the finger at the petrochemical industry. But if Kaohsiung totally rejects the petrochemical industry, where will the new jobs and economic growth come from? Once the petrochemical industry in Kaohsiung is evicted, what alternatives will the industry chain and its huge workforce have? From Kaohsiung to Taiwan as a whole, all that the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen have to offer are slogans. But "Where's the beef?"

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen, who is busy planning her 2016 presidential campaign, has once again held forth on "Taiwan's Future." The theme of her speech at the NTU Forum was "Taiwan's Future." In Tsai's own words, "Taiwan as a whole faces changes to the global situation, and Taiwan must develop a new strategy." Given the timing and the topic, her remarks attracted considerable attention.

First she said "With the ICT industry as its mainstay, the orders from Taiwan, production overseas OEM export growth model" has led to "a disconnect between domestic employment and salaries and greater income inequality." She said "The impact of structural changes in international supply and demand" requires "swift adjustments and changes."

Tsai Ing-wen put it quite well. In particular with her reference to employment, salaries, and income distribution. She obviously wanted to highlight her concern for social justice and public issues. But when she spoke of how Taiwan's economic growth model must adjust and change, Tsai began talking in circles. She said Taiwan needs to consider "both export and domestic demand, to link globalization and localization, and become innovation-oriented in order to increase employment, raise salaries, and improve the public welfare by means of the new economic growth model." But what exactly is this model? How can one create and implement this new model, given the existing economic base?

As we all know, the ingredients for economic growth are capital, labor, and technology. Tsai Ing-wen's "new economic growth model" requires investing in emerging industries, training a labor force with professional skills, and developing innovative new technologies. But she avoids every one of these key issues. As a result, she essentially said nothing. She probably realized her talk was much too vague, so she added a comment. She said Taiwan needs to "vigorously promote industrial innovation." It needs "domestic industry and infrastructure investment." Unfortunately, such insights have long been truisms. They have been hashed over for decades. Tsai has criticized the status quo. She has declared the need for a vision for the future. Yet she has no new ideas about how to deal with hard reality. Needless to say, she has no new medicine to prescribe for what ails Taiwan.

Next, Tsai Ing-wen trotted out the "China factor." She acknowledged that "The rise of [Mainland] China and cross-Strait relations will have an even greater impact on Taiwan's future." She thinks the "China factor" is "a challenge Taiwan must face in the future." She pointed out that "More and more Taiwan investments and jobs are going to [Mainland] China." She spoke of "Taiwan's top talent and the industry's core technology," of "major injections of [Mainland] Chinese talent and technology," of "[Mainland] Chinese enterprises imitating or poaching from Taiwan, copying technology, constituting a growing pressure on Taiwan." In other words, Tsai Ing-wen's "[Mainland] China Factor Challenge Theory" is nothing more than "China Threat Theory Lite." On the one hand, she one-sidedly emphasized the magnetic effect the Mainland market has on Taiwan, but failed to offer any specific remedies by which Taiwan can retain its capital, talent, and technology. On the other hand, she ignored the economic development opportunities the Mainland market has brought Taiwan. She refused to think about how to strengthen Taiwan through cross-Strait economic cooperation, and thereby consolidating Taiwan's economic base. This of course amounts to serious ideological indolence and irresponsibility.

Regarding cross-Strait relations, Tsai Ing-wen said she is "willing to confront long-standing differences between the two sides, and actively seek to resolve the cross-Strait dispute. The DPP will be firm and pragmatic, steady in its pace, and make every effort to establish of a new way of interaction and communication with the other side, in order to realize cross-Strait peace and stable development." She repeated some of her "goodwill" rhetoric from the past, including such terms as "peaceful and stable development," "pragmatic and moderate," and so on. But the problem Tsai Ing-wen faces is not only about goodwill. More importantly, it is about strategy. The DPP refuses to accept the 1992 consensus as the political basis for cross-Strait interaction. Yet it still wants to create "a new mode of interaction and communication." Therefore the party must offer a clear and concise proposal as to how this would be achieved, and not always sideline the issue by talking about goodwill. Meanwhile, the DPP opposes and obstructs everyone else's solutions to cross-Strait political problems.

Besides cross-Strait relations, Tsai Ing-wen also touched on the matter of regional economic integration, She said "The Ma government focuses exclusively on the STA and MTA. It does not think about how to make breakthroughs by negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) with major trade rivals, or how to participate in regional economic integration." She said "The result has made Taiwan more dependent on the [Mainland] Chinese market, and global integration more distant." Tsai Ing-wen accuses the Ma administration of promoting "Sinicization" in the name of "globalization."

So what is Tsai Ing-wen's solution? When confronted with demands for specifics, she talks in circles. She says "Taiwan must be become integrated into the regional economy," and "We need more strategic and comprehensive FTA negotiations, and active participation in multilateral trade agreement negotiations." These are all politically correct slogans. But how would they be implemented? No one opposes the pursuit of a "balanced and diversified economic and trade strategy." But the DPP habitually ignores cross-Strait political reality. It talks idly about "internationalization" and "globalization" that bypasses the Mainland. But given political and economic realities, these are merely empty words.

Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly referred to the reconstruction of Kaohsiung. Following the Kaohsiung gas explosion, the green camp obviously wanted to point the finger at the petrochemical industry. But if Kaohsiung totally rejects the petrochemical industry, where will the new jobs and economic growth come from? Once the petrochemical industry in Kaohsiung is evicted, what alternatives will the industry chain and its huge workforce have? From Kaohsiung to Taiwan as a whole, all that the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen have to offer are slogans. But "Where's the beef?"

社論－蔡英文還是很空心
2014年08月14日 04:10
本報訊

積極布局2016的蔡英文又大談「台灣的未來」，這次是在出席「台大論壇」時，以「台灣的未來」為題的演說。這篇演說，就蔡英文自己的說法，是要分享她對於「台灣整體所面臨的一個外在跟全球的變局，及台灣所需要的發展的新戰略」的看法，就時機及題目而言，都很有吸引力。

首先，她提到，台灣「以ICT產業為主力、以台灣接單、海外生產的代工出口成長模式」，不但和「國內就業、薪資脫節，並造成所得分配惡化」，「又面臨國際供需結構調整的衝擊」，需要「快速的調整、改變」。

蔡英文說得很好，尤其是她提到了「就業」、「薪資」、「所得分配」，顯然是想突顯她對「社會正義」、「公民議題」的關注。然而，台灣經濟成長的模式要怎樣「調整」、「改變」，蔡英文開始原地打轉，她說台灣需要「可以兼顧出口和內需，連結全球化和在地化，以創新為導向，以增加就業、薪資以及人民生活福祉為目標的新經濟成長模式」，但這個模式究竟是什麼？如何在既有的經濟基礎上打造與落實這個新模式？

眾所周知，經濟成長的要素不外乎資本、勞動和技術，蔡英文心中台灣的「新經濟成長模式」是要投資哪些新興產業，培訓哪些專業技能的勞動力，又要開發創新哪些新的技術領域，這些關鍵的問題全都避而不談，所以等於什麼都沒有說。可能知道自己談得過度空泛，蔡英文補充了幾句，稱台灣需要「大力推動產業創新」，需要「投資內需產業和基礎建設」，遺憾的是，這些早已是幾十年來老生常談的話題，蔡英文對現狀有批評、對未來有願景，對實現願景卻沒有新思維，當然也沒有新藥方。

接下來，蔡英文談了「中國因素」。她承認「中國的崛起和兩岸的關係更是攸關台灣的未來」，但她認為「中國因素」是「台灣未來發展必面對的挑戰」。她指出，「愈來愈多的台灣投資及就業機會流向中國」，「台灣高級人才和產業核心技術」「大量挹注中國人才和技術的缺口」，「中資企業大量從台商挖角或者模仿、抄襲技術，對台商構成與日俱增的壓力」。也就是說，蔡英文的「中國因素挑戰論」其實只是「中國（經濟）威脅論」的溫和版，一方面片面強調大陸市場對台灣的磁吸效應，卻提不出來台灣如何留住資金、人才和技術的具體方案，另一方面，則忽視了大陸市場帶給台灣經濟的發展機遇，從而不願意去思考如何在兩岸經濟合作中壯大台灣，厚植台灣經濟基礎，這當然是嚴重的思想怠惰與不負責任。

在兩岸關係方面，蔡英文還稱：「願意面對兩岸長期存在的歧見，為了積極尋求兩岸爭議的化解之道，民進黨會以堅定、務實、穩健的步伐，努力和對岸建立全新的互動及溝通的模式，以實踐和平穩定發展的兩岸互動的關係」延續了過去蔡英文提出的一些善意，包括「和平穩定發展」、「務實穩健」等等。然而，蔡英文現在面對的問題不僅僅是要「釋出善意」，更重要的是要「提出方略」，如果民進黨不接受「九二共識」作為兩岸互動的政治基礎，想要打造「全新的互動及溝通的模式」，那麼，該黨有必要提出明確的主張和清晰的作法，而不能總是一面空談善意，一面卻反對、抵制各方提出的解決兩岸政治定位問題的方案。

在兩岸關係之外，蔡英文碰觸了區域經濟整合的問題，批判「馬政府只專注於兩岸的服貿、貨貿協議，卻不思索如何有力突破和主要的貿易對手洽簽自由貿易協定（FTA）及參與區域經濟整合的阻力」，「結果不僅造成台灣更加依賴中國市場，而且和全球接軌的目的距離愈來愈遠」，蔡英文指涉馬政府是在假「全球化」之名義推動「中國化」。

那麼，蔡英文的藥方又是什麼？碰到具體策略問題，她又開始原地打轉說「要堅持台灣必須同步融入區域經濟的整合」，「我們必須更有策略、全方位地推動洽簽FTA，並且積極參與多邊及複邊的貿易協定的談判」。這些看似政治正確的口號，卻始終提不出、找不到具體落實的路徑。沒有人會反對台灣要追求「平衡且多元的經貿戰略」，但民進黨長期的問題就是忽略兩岸政治現實，空談繞開大陸的「國際化」、「全球化」，但在政治經濟的現實脈絡裡，這些都只能是「空話」。

蔡英文反覆提到高雄的重建問題。在高雄氣爆事件後，綠營明顯想將矛頭指向石化工業，問題在於，完全拒絕石化工業的高雄，新的就業與經濟成長利基又在哪裡呢？石化工業一旦撤離高雄，整條產業鏈和龐大的就業人口又能有怎樣的新選擇呢？從高雄到全台灣，民進黨和蔡英文難道總是只有口號，沒有牛肉嗎？