Ten Questions vs. One Question: The Two Parties' Economic Achilles Heels

Ten Questions vs. One Question: The Two Parties' Economic Achilles Heels
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 5, 2014

Summary: The KMT and DPP must set aside their rote positions. They must listen to different opinions. They must recruit people with broader experience and greater wisdom. They must face the problem squarely. They must offer genuine policy options. If the ruling and opposition parties can move in this direction, then Taiwan's economy and its people may survive.

Full Text Below:

Last week, the Democratic Progressive Party held its first "citizen's economic conference." In her opening address, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen asked the government "Ten Questions" about Taiwan's economy. She asked: Why has the economy nearly been suffocated? Why is work so hard to find? Why are wages declining? Why is the starting salary for a young person a mere 22,000 NT? Why have consumer prices increased? Why have real estate prices soared? Why is income disparity increasing? Why do people on the same Taiwan inhabit two different worlds? Why has Taiwan been left behind by South Korea? Why do government officials insist that Taiwan is no longer an Asian tiger? Where is Taiwan's economy headed? What has happened to the people's hope for the future? In response, KMT spokesman Chen Yi-hsing cited President Ma. Ma has repeatedly cited a Wall Street Journal editorial which asked, "Why has Taiwan left Itself Behind?" In short, Chen responded to Tsai's "Ten Questions" with "One Question." The exchange reflects the difference in economic thinking between the DPP and the ruling Kuomintang.

In fact, Tsai Ing-wen's "Ten Questions" are simply criticisms of the KMT's economic policies. Her barrage of questions underscores the two parties' vastly different solutions to economic problems. They too have failed to gain public approval.

The Ma administration and the KMT's key prescription for Taiwan's economic problems is liberalization. Its strategy is the liberalization of trade, first with the Mainland, then with the rest of the world. This thinking is rooted in the fact that the Mainland has become the world's largest trading entity, second largest economy, and since 2003, Taiwan's largest trading partner. Taiwan hopes to open up to the world, to participate in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Partnership Agreement), the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), and other regional economic organizations. To do so, it must first sign the FTA related cross-Strait agreements within the ECFA framework, such as the STA and MTA, and promote the FEPZs. Alas, the DPP persists in obstructing the STA, FEPZ, and Cross-Strait Agreements Oversight Regulations in the Legislative Yuan. As a result, Taiwan's negotiations with the Mainland have fallen behind South Korea's FTA negotiations. This could lead to billions in exports from Taiwan replaced by exports from South Korea. That is why the KMT demanded of Tsai, "Why has Taiwan left Itself Behind?"

Taiwan faces complex economic problems. In particular, intense internal and external pressure to change its economic structure in the wake of the financial tsunami. Emphasizing liberalization alone is the KMT's Achilles Heel. One. Liberalization alone cannot change an economic growth model overly dependent on exports, especially the "Taiwan takes the orders, then manufactures the product overseas" OEM export model. Two. Liberalization alone cannot problems with the growth model. It cannot remedy the disconnect between domestic employment and wages that has led to increased income disparity. Three. Liberalization alone lacks supporting industrial policy and structural adjustment measures. It cannot ensure the effectiveness of further liberalization of Taiwan's economy. Four. Taiwan's liberalization to the world, and participation in regional economic integration, remains limited by cross-Strait factors. These are not under our control. Liberalizing trade with the Mainland first strikes a sensitive cross-Strait policy nerve. It inevitably triggers opposition.

The Ma administration and the KMT's economic policy emphasizes the external and de-emphasizes the internal. This policy has lost the support of the public. It is meeting with great resistance. By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party's economic policy emphasizes the internal and de-emphasizes the external. Tsai Ing-wen's "citizen economic conference" underscores innovation, employment, sustainable development and domestic issues in the real estate sector and SME development. Alas, on globalization and the sensitive policy of cross-Strait liberalization, she is clearly evasive, and has failed to break free of the DPP's habitual policy prescriptions.

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP must be clear. Taiwan's population, natural resources, and market scale are limited. It cannot phase out its current overly export-dependent economic model overnight. Cross-Strait economic and trade relations are inseparable. Beijing's growing influence in the international community, and Taiwan's response to globalization and the world, make it impossible to bypass the Mainland market and the Beijing authorities. The DPP's biggest Achilles Heel has been cross-Strait relations. Yet all it does is blame the KMT for excessive reliance on the Mainland market. All it does is stress the need to balance international relations with cross-Strait relations. As for internal structural reforms, the DPP has an appealing policy statement. But so far it has failed to make any breakthroughs in policy sufficient to change the status quo. Their feasibility remains difficult to verify. Add to this the 2012 presidential election. Tsai has stressed "fairness and justice" in public housing, the capital gains tax, and real estate tax reform. These are all doable. But the government is already doing them. The differences in the two parties' policies are limited. The DPP may blast the Ma government, but charges of vilification without content continue to haunt Tsai Ing-wen.

The KMT emphasizes liberalization alone. It emphasizes external factors and de-emphasizes internal factors. The DPP blindly evades the core issue in cross-Strait relations. It emphasizes the internal and de-emphasizes the external. Both parties have Achilles Heels that expose them or entrap them. Neither offer healthy, sustainable modes of economic development. As Tsai pointed out, Taiwan's economic growth model and economic decision-making patterns must change. But how must they change? What must they be changed into? Neither party has an answer.

The KMT and DPP must set aside their rote positions. They must listen to different opinions. They must recruit people with broader experience and greater wisdom. They must face the problem squarely. They must offer genuine policy options. If the ruling and opposition parties can move in this direction, then Taiwan's economy and its people may survive.

社論－十問vs.一問 評兩黨經濟罩門
2014年09月05日 04:10
本報訊

民進黨上周召開首場「公民經濟會議」，民進黨主席蔡英文在開場致詞對當前台灣經濟向政府提出「十問」：為何經濟悶到不行？為何工作難找、薪資倒退、年輕人起薪只有22K？為何民生物價漲，房價飆？為何所得分配惡化，一個台灣、兩個世界？為何台灣被南韓超越，政府官員說早就沒有四小龍？未來台灣經濟何去何從，人民的希望在哪裡？對此，國民黨發言人陳以信則以馬總統近來多次提到《華爾街日報》社論反問：「台灣為何自甘落後？」這「十問」對「一問」，反映出當前民進黨和執政的國民黨截然不同的經濟思維。

事實上，蔡英文的「十問」，都是批評國民黨經濟政策的人，反覆在問的問題，顯示國民兩黨對解決經濟問題的思維，存在很大差異，也都未能獲得社會普遍的認同和肯定。

馬政府及國民黨對當前台灣經濟問題的最重要處方就是「開放」，而且是「先大陸，後全球」的開放策略。此一思維是鑑於中國大陸已成為全球第一大貿易國、第二大經濟體，自2003年起就是台灣第一大貿易伙伴，因而台灣要對全世界開放，參與TPP（跨太平洋戰略夥伴協定）、RCEP（區域全面經濟夥伴關係）等區域經濟整合，就先要完成具兩岸FTA性質、ECFA架構下的《服貿協議》、貨貿協議等，並推動自由經濟示範區。但民進黨在立院阻撓《服貿協議》、《自由經濟示範區特別條例》等經濟自由化法案審查，導致台灣落後於中韓FTA談判進度，可能造成台灣數百億美元出口商品被替代的威脅，因而國民黨才質問蔡英文：「台灣為何自甘落後？」

然而，當前台灣經濟問題錯綜複雜，尤其面對金融海嘯後內外經濟結構的劇烈調整，一味強調開放，難免暴露很多罩門：一是不能改變經濟成長過於依賴出口、特別是「台灣接單，海外生產」的代工出口模式；二是無法解決上述成長模式和國內就業、薪資嚴重脫節，並導致所得分配惡化問題；三是沒有配套的產業政策及結構調整措施，不能確保進一步開放對台灣經濟的總體效益；四是台灣對全球開放及參與區域經濟部整合，受限於兩岸因素，不能操之在我；先對大陸開放又觸及國內最敏感的兩岸政策分歧，以致引發一波波反對浪潮。

整體來看，馬政府及國民黨「重外輕內」的經濟政策思維，已失去凝聚內部共識能力，推動起來阻力很大。相對而言，民進黨的經濟政策思維，則是「重內輕外」，從蔡英文楬櫫「公民經濟會議」的規畫重點，可知其側重在創新、就業、永續發展及在地產業和中小企業發展等國內議題，但對全球化及敏感的兩岸開放政策，顯然避重就輕，未脫民進黨一貫的策略。

蔡英文及民進黨應該都很清楚，以台灣的人口條件、自然資源稟賦及市場規模與目前經濟型態，要擺脫高度依賴出口的結構絕非一蹴可幾，尤其兩岸經貿關係已密不可分，北京在國際社會影響力又與日俱增，台灣要因應全球化，和世界接軌，就不可能繞過大陸市場及北京當局。但兩岸事務一直是民進黨最大罩門，因而只能一味批評國民黨只想依賴大陸市場，空泛強調要追求全球和兩岸的平衡。至於內部結構改革，雖有華麗誘人的政策宣示，但迄今卻未能提出足以改變現狀的突破性政策構想，難以驗證其可行性。再加上2012總統大選蔡英文強調的「公平正義」，如社會住宅、資本利得稅、房地稅制改革等，不是行不通，就是政府已經在陸續推動，兩黨的政策主張差異有限，故民進黨批判馬政府火力雖強，但「空心」之譏評也始終纏繞著蔡英文。

國民黨一味強調開放、「重外輕內」的政策思維，和民進黨一味迴避兩岸核心問題、「重內輕外」的政策思維，都存在容易被戮破或自陷困境的罩門，不是健康、可持之以恆的經濟發展大道。誠如蔡英文指出，台灣經濟成長模式和經濟決策模式都要改變，但要如何作出改變？改變到哪裡去？兩黨卻都沒有答案。

國民黨和民進黨皆應拋開本位立場，聽取更多元的聲音，吸納更廣闊的經驗和智慧，實實在在地面對問題，拿出可以真正解決問題的政策方案。朝野兩大黨若皆能朝此方向努力，則台灣經濟之幸矣！國家人民之幸矣！