Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Paper on Parade: Emerson Niou: The China Factor in Taiwan Politics

United Daily News, the pro-KMT paper, passed around another opinion poll showing a large Ma Ying-jeou lead, by ~9 points if Soong is in the race. As we saw last week when Global Views shockingly shut down its presidential election polling, GV's head said that the DPP's Tsai Ing-wen leads President Ma 4-6% in the polls. Polls from pro-KMT media that show large leads for the President appear to exist to create a sense of inevitability. As a reporter remarked, it will now be difficult to write about Ma's standing in the polls, since for the next 90 days reliable poll data will be hard to come buy.

Speaking of polls, Emerson Niou's recent paper, The China Factor in Taiwan Politics, flew across my desk this week. It was given at a conference in Japan and is still very much a work in progress, but it contains a rich array of data analysis bearing on the question of which voters pick what candidates and why. Niou is the principal investigator of the Taiwan National Security Survey for the NCCU Election Study Center, from which the data is drawn.

Niou argues, as many of us have observed, that the usual Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) and similar polls seldom set down conditions for their questions -- they don't ask people questions like "would you support independence if Taiwan had US support? If China didn't threaten Taiwan?" The TNSS data contains such queries. Here are four items (pro-independence answers in Green):
Q1. If the act of declaring independence will cause Mainland China to attack Taiwan, do you favor or not favor Taiwan independence?

Not Favor: 60.8%
Favor: 30.5%
NA: 8.7

Q2. If the act of declaring independence will not cause Mainland China to attack Taiwan, do you favor or not favor Taiwan independence?

Not Favor: 18.4%
Favor: 74.1%
NA: 7.5%

Q3. If great political, economic, and social disparity exists between Mainland China and Taiwan, do you favor or not favor Taiwan unifying with China?

Not Favor: 76.5%
Favor: 16.4% NA:
7.1%

Q4. If only small political, economic, and social disparity exists between Mainland China and Taiwan, do you favor or not favor Taiwan unifying with China?

Not Favor: 56.4%
Favor: 36.4%
NA: 7.2%
I'd be curious to see how the terminology -- was 中國 or 大陸 used? -- affects the answer -- but that aside,  question number 2 really shows how powerful support for independence is in Taiwan, and how important the China military threat is in creating support for the KMT and reducing support for independence, a conclusion Niou also indicates later in the paper. Question 4 is also interesting -- independence is about perceptions of shared identity, and even with economic and social conditions in China similar to those in Taiwan, most people still prefer independence.

Further questions were directed at the perception of the China threat and the perception of US support. Niou writes:
Tables 4a and 4b reveal that perceptions of China’s threat are to some degree a function of what people in Taiwan perceive the level of U.S. commitment to be and that Taiwanese support for independence varies according to the degree of worry about China’s threat. Those who perceive the U.S. commitment level as high are more likely to be less concerned about China’s threat and more likely to support independence. Conversely, those who worry about U.S. commitment to Taiwan tend to fear China’s threat more and are less willing to support independence.
In other words, what Niou is pointing out here is that the current US policy of creating a perception of reduced US support for Taiwan helps the KMT. When the US handed out F-16 upgrades instead of new aircraft, it helped the KMT, handing Beijing a double victory: (1) a reward for its unswerving policy of transferring tension between Taiwan and China to the US-Taiwan relationship; and (2) aiding Beijing's ally in Taiwan, the KMT, to get re-elected.

Niou also explores the effects of demographics such as age, education, and ethnicity, on voting preferences. At one point he observes:
Second, perception matters when it comes to the intersection of politics and economics. Ma and the KMT, even while espousing a relatively pro-status-quo policy, are viewed with suspicion regarding their economic stance. Even the smallest increase in economic integration between Taiwan and the mainland is deemed favorable to the longterm interests of China. The DPP politicians, on the other hand, procure increased interdependence with fewer scruples from their supporters.
This observation, that because DPP supporters trust the DPP's handling of cross-strait relations, meaning that they are more willing to tolerate increased integration with China, implies that in terms of its policy to integrate Taiwan with China so it can never declare independence, Beijing may well benefit from a DPP presidency. I doubt the CCP has enough imagination to embrace the possibilities, however. Niou also points out that the belief that China will not act in case of independence or the perception that the military threat is vapor also provides support for the KMT. He closes with a set of recommendations for the DPP and KMT.

This is an interesting paper with lots of numbers. Well worth checking out!
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just back from a ride around town to see this interesting post. It is well known that every providence in China would like some flexibility to do things their way. The art is how one goes about steadily allowing each providence has the power to react in local development efficiently while not becoming too divided in the ways things are done. This was a very important issue in Sun Yet-Hsien's plans. Up to now, many things have followed those plans with success, but it needs to be studied deeper.

As far as Taiwan is concerned, It is clear that nobody likes the way China controls things. So of course nobody wants unification simply because of the fear. As far as I can see, Taiwan is pretty much independent, and there seems no need to emphasize this issue or make it an issue.

George

Ben Goren said...

I've followed elections in many countries for quite a few years but Taiwan really has a distinct and highly influential psychological dimension to its Presidential elections. It seems that both parties are very cognisant of the 'back the likely winner' sentiment (nobody wants to be a loser right?) which could have been reinforced by 400 years of colonisation and rapid harsh suppression of minorities standing against seemingly unchangeable majorities. Looking at Taiwan the KMT's most tried and tested tactics seem to be:

1. convince voters of the inevitability of a KMT win
2. scare voters into either voting KMT or not voting at all
3. copy DPP election strategies to confuse voters
4. influence media to obfuscate and absent DPP gains in popularity
5. tap into Taiwanese self righteousness through character assassination

I'm sure your readers can think of more to add to that list. What does scare me about this election is that Tsai may well win but, as you predicted before, the KMT will use the 'polls' to claim that the result was fixed and stage a huge 'public' protest which President Ma will use as an excuse not to hand over power on May 20th 2012. And of course, many voters will be waiting to see who gets shot on election eve ...

Michael Turton said...

ROFL to Who Gets Shot. Maybe I should set up a pool and take bets.

Michael

Readin said...

"..who gets shot.."? I thought they didn't do that anymore. The new modern KMT hits their opponents with corruption charges. They don't use the Chicago way - they use the Singapore way.

Readin said...

I'm glad to finally see a poll asking the right questions.

The results of question #4 show the weakness of Taiwanese support for indepenedence. It seems that for almost half of Taiwanese there is no question of patriotism, love of country, or identity - it is merely a question of money and politics.

While I can respect that many people's concerns are primarily about politics - it suggests that the KMT actually reflects the will of many Tainenese in its stance toward China - seeking to postpone annexation until China becomes more like Taiwan rather than seeking permanent independence.

Even question #2 was surprising to me. Only 75% would choose independence absent a threat from China? No wonder support for self-defense is so weak in Taiwan.

Michael Turton said...

Readin, what 75% really breaks down to is that it is 90% of everyone who is not Deep Blue. In other words, if you're not religiously committed to unification, you want independence.

Michael

Readin said...

"Readin, what 75% really breaks down to is that it is 90% of everyone who is not Deep Blue."

You would put the deep blue numbers at 17%?

Anonymous said...

@Ben: I think it's a bit too early to see patterns in Taiwan's presidential elections. Each of them happened under totally different circumstances, each time the competition and outcomes were vastly different.

I am not so concerned with the KMT going autocratic again (I don't think that's very likely). However, I am quite afraid of the case that Tsai win's but the DPP never manages to get a parliamentary majority.

Anonymous said...

Let's also not forget the fact that most KMT candidates consider Taiwan as a whole unity, rather DPP try to address the various ethnic groups individually without a plan for Taiwan as a whole. This is very typical among people that just want to have visibility for themselves rather than putting the needs of the nation first. What this generally causes is waste of public resources for nothing. Let's face it, the ugly side of democracy is just a copy from other countries, countries of which greed has caused the world problems, and are not requesting developing countries with more traditional values and love to pick up the bill.

DPP started out with a vision to try and solve faults the accumulated over the years, only to corrupt at a faster pace due to personal greed rather than putting the well being of the nation as first place. Whenever I see the Slogan "Taiwan Next" it just pisses me off.

George

Anonymous said...

In well educated and informed politics, there should really be no such thing as "deep green" or "deep blue" etc. The focus should be on the issues and solution.

George

Anonymous said...

What shocks me is that 30% answered they'd still want independence even it meant an attack from China. I'd hope that answer would be 0%.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, Taiwan's unresolved status prevents valuable discussion on other issues.

Ben Goren said...

Anonymous said...
What shocks me is that 30% answered they'd still want independence even it meant an attack from China. I'd hope that answer would be 0%.


I'm confused. So you think that 0% of Taiwanese should want something if it means potentially making a sacrifice to attain it? Also, are you happy with China holding Taiwanese to ransom like this? What if China said it would attack if Taiwan continued to call its Presidential elections 'Presidential' or use the word 'national' to describe its government? Would you also then hope that 0% of Taiwanese would insist on retaining those things? Where do you draw the line?

Ben Goren said...

@ Anon 10:38 PM

Yes, I share your fear about that too. Many commentators have said that it is far more important that the DPP win control of the Legislature than Tsai win the Presidency. However, a split President-Legislature mirrors results often seen in the French system, a by product of a mixed Parliamentary-Presidential system. Hence the constitutional revisions and tinkering to the system over the last 20 years.

Anonymous said...

@Ben Goren

I draw the line when saying I don't want a missle blowing up my house and killing my wife and kids so that the elections can be called 'presidential', the baseball team can wear shirts that say 'taiwan' instead of 'chinese taipei'. I'm not saying I'm happy about Taiwan being bullied by China, but what are you gonna do? They're the neighborhood bully.

I personally would rather Taiwan not be a country and not get blown up. Call me crazy.

Robert Scott Kelly said...

@ George, you wrote:

"Let's also not forget the fact that most KMT candidates consider Taiwan as a whole unity, rather DPP try to address the various ethnic groups individually without a plan for Taiwan as a whole."

This is simply not true. Both parties cultivate the ethnic vote just like parties do all over the world. To take one example: one of Ma's campaign promises from 2008, and one that he actually fulfilled, was seeing the enactment of the Hakka Basic Act (and various other measures to promote Hakka culture and identity). Hard to square this with your notion of a KMT party that does not concern itself with the ethnic vote.

Anonymous said...

@Robert Scott Kelly,
Various cultural background each have it't uniqueness and values. I do not consider promotion of these uniqueness and values is good, but things like making various languages national language certainly does more harm, confusion, waste in resources, etc. than good. What the KMT Government had done in the recent years is to try to harmonize the situation and create a general respect for the uniqueness of each ethnic culture. This is the way to go. In the process, they are also trying to harmonize the relationship between the Mainland as well. We are seeing some progress, but also bear in mind that the business culture is veru much like what Taiwan was like some 20 years ago. So there is a gap that needs to be narrowed gradually, and is not totally a China bully issue. I can assure you that we face bullying from US, French, and Canadian large companies as well. In large business dealings, there are times when these will occur, and is not unique to any individual country.

George

Anonymous said...

These numbers are pretty damning. If anyone in Beijing is realistic enough to look at this kind of survey and think about it, what's their reaction? It has to be "let's push for something symbolic and toothless and let this simmer on low for another 50 years or so". Something like the Zhonghua Brotherhood of the Sons of the Yellow Emperor.

Michael says: "the current US policy of creating a perception of reduced US support for Taiwan helps the KMT". That may be true, but from the US point of view that perception is created in order to decrease the possibility of a war. Like your Arthur ("The Dinosaur") Waldron paper said, the DPP still has to convince people in Taiwan and internationally that they can maintain a reasonable relationship with their unreasonable neighbor. Cheap talking points like "Oh, there's a conflict between the CCP and the KMT, not between Taiwan and China" aren't going to cut it.

Of course, the best way for the DPP to show competence would be to win the presidency and legislature next year. From these poll numbers it certainly looks possible.

Anonymous said...

@Robert

Thank you. Some times the reductivism gets to be a bit much.

Ben Goren said...

@ Anon 3:14pm

I wouldn't call you crazy. You've expressed your position and you've every right to make those choices in the face of bullying. Since you mention them as a rationale for your position, would you draw the line at your children being brought up by an authoritarian occupying junta teaching them to love their new rulers and report if their parents expressed dissent? I'm sorry but it reminds me of the famous phrase, "First they came for the Jews but since I wasn't a jew I did nothing..." Maybe nations aren't worth fighting for in which case could you tell me what is worth fighting for?

Taiwan Echo said...

Ben:"the KMT will use the 'polls' to claim that the result was fixed and stage a huge 'public' protest which President Ma will use as an excuse not to hand over power on May 20th 2012."

This is where Soong's participation could contribute to the stability of Taiwan.

" And of course, many voters will be waiting to see who gets shot on election eve ... "

Again, this is where Soong's participation could contribute to the stability of Taiwan -- this provides a chance for the dark force to ensure that the blue holds the government by getting rid of the incompetent.

Taiwan Echo said...

Michael:"ROFL to Who Gets Shot. Maybe I should set up a pool and take bets."

I got my bet already :)

Taiwan Echo said...

ReadIn:"The results of question #4 show the weakness of Taiwanese support for indepenedence.
...
Even question #2 was surprising to me. Only 75% would choose independence absent a threat from China? No wonder support for self-defense is so weak in Taiwan."


The value of the poll in discussion is that it provides contexts for the questions. You interpret the data by ignoring the contexts.

"it suggests that the KMT actually reflects the will of many Tainenese in its stance toward China - seeking to postpone annexation until China becomes more like Taiwan rather than seeking permanent independence."

You are reading the poll upsidedown. The poll shows that even if China is more like Taiwan, more than half Taiwanese are favoring the independence.

Taiwan Echo said...

George:DPP started out with a vision to try and solve faults the accumulated over the years, only to corrupt at a faster pace due to personal greed rather than putting the well being of the nation as first place. Whenever I see the Slogan "Taiwan Next" it just pisses me off.

Maybe you are one of those who only read blue news.

Readin said...

@Anon: "I personally would rather Taiwan not be a country and not get blown up. Call me crazy. "

I won't call you crazy or even criticize. I will just note that no country can exist without some people who are willing to die to save it because there will always be people who are willing to die to destroy it. Even Taiwan's current status as a pariah separate from China and Japan is only possible because of the people who died fighting Japan and the Communist Chinese.

The smart countries do like Switzerland - they arm themselves and train themselves to make it clear that 1. they are willing to die to defend themselves and 2. anyone who wants to test that willingness will die trying. So nobody bothers them.

Taiwan could learn from that.

Readin said...

@anon "What shocks me is that 30% answered they'd still want independence even it meant an attack from China. I'd hope that answer would be 0%."

Whether it makes sense or not, I think in most normal countries the number would be much higher than 30%. Look at recent and not-so-recent history.

The US invades Iraq and Afghanistan with no intention of annexation and with the intention of getting rid of despotic rulers - and yet in both cases the US faces continuing resistance.

In Sudan and East Timor, the votes for independence succeed despite the risk in all those cases of invasion. East Timor actually did face significant violence after the election.

Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo - all new countries paid for in blood.

In Europe in the 1940s, every country but Austria resisted annexation.

In 1930s and 1940s in Asia the countries resisted annexation despite that they were being annexed by a racially similar and technologically superior country that would free them from western imperialism.

How often in history have you seen a country peacefully surrender its independence? How often have you seen a country peacefully surrender independence to a neighbor that has a history of threatening and bullying and that has a less free political system?

Europe seems to have lost the will to live as a civilization. But outside of Europe, I wonder how many countries there are where only 30% think their independence is worth suffering invasion?

Michael Turton said...

Cheap talking points like "Oh, there's a conflict between the CCP and the KMT, not between Taiwan and China" aren't going to cut it.

I wish people who commented would actually read the blog.*sigh*

Anonymous said...

@Taiwan Echo,
Actually I focus more on business related news. But I do take interest in what is going on politically once in a while. I also see the dark side of the parties in terms of trying to obtain financial support of individual representative in the legislature. We have also blown the whistle on a few that were doing it illegally regardless of Party. So I feel neutral enough to look at more issues than most even read about.

Most people whom talk politics only talk about the mud involved. I think it is more healthy to look at the good and bad of each issue. I see lots of transportation construction going on which I just haven't seen in many other countries, I see traffic still becoming more congested which I feel is an important indication of economy growth. But who can say which party is behind all this that really pushes the economy forward?

I would recommend that we look at political issues then discuss which party has a better approach, and why. Let's not accuse others of blindly supporting any particular party or reading news only from a particular party.

George

Anonymous said...

I think it is unrealistic to expect Taiwan and the Mainland to become a unified Government entity anytime in the foreseen future simply because of the different ways things are conducted. However, in order to avoid this becoming an issue of focus, both sides have to focus on other possible improvement in relationships without denying the possibility to go either way. This is by far a smarter approach. Thus the various political interaction we are seeing as Michael had addressed. The real difficulty DPP has is that it has to focus on the "independence" issue, this them become a very difficult position in dealing with the Mainland. The KMT party 黨章does not have such hard position that will prevent them from more flexible dealing with the Mainland for the benefit of Taiwan.

Now let's assume that the DPP did win the election, and the China said, "If DPP does not change their 黨章 to take out the independence clauses, we will not allow Taiwan Produce to enter the Mainland market," who will be effected most? I would think the DPP supporters whom are the majority in the southern part of Taiwan.

George

Anonymous said...

@"I wish people who commented..."

I meant a DPP talking point, not yours.

Michael Turton said...

George,

cross strait interactions benefit large firms closely connected to the KMT, organized crime, and the big western financial firms that are strong backers of Ma Ying-jeou. The benefits aimed at southern Taiwan are small and generally go to middlemen (Taiwan runs an agricultural trade deficit with China which ECFA has done little to address and probably increased). Hence a disruption in cross-strait economic relations would affect large firms and organized crime, two big supporters of the KMT. That is why China will probably not make a complete break, but simply attempt to punish firms and areas it perceives to be DPP supporters.

It should be noted that prior to ECFA Taiwan had a larger share of the China market.

The number of DPP supporters is basically the same throughout Taiwan. The difference between north and south is that in the north there are many KMT supporters, but fewer in the South.

The DPP's position does not prevent them from dealing with Beijing. Rather, Beijing's position prevents it from dealing with the DPP. The DPP made numerous deals with the CCP during the Chen Administration, especially the first one. Only after the second Administration, when there was a pro-China ex-financial industry executive heading AIT and the Bush Administration wanted to get China onboard a number of issues, did Beijing change its stance. The KMT also pushed Beijing to stop talking to the DPP -- a clear case of sacrificing benefits for Taiwan for petty political gains.

Michael

Anonymous said...

@Michael,
What you talk about is basically the same anywhere any government or any party exists. So it is not a matter of KMT or DPP, etc, but rather it's a matter of trust among all parties involved, it is only natural that you select to deal with whomever you can trust. When DPP was in power, they had the opportunity to build that trust; however, they never had wisdom to build up this trust. Whether they get a second chance or not really depends on how they handle the issues in the future. If you also listening to the news on TV occasionally, there is an effort to eliminate the middleman; however, the individual or small companies do not have the knowledge or capability to conduct international dealings, it really take effort on the individual to gain more knowledge on international business practices.

I think it is quite normal that a political party in power has some more advanced understanding in what will happen, but to take advantage of this can be done within the Law or ignoring the Law; just as this "farmhouse" issue; there are various laws and regulations on what you should do to make any house legal, however, the older the building or the more south you go through the island, you see more people going against the regulations. Just in our complex, people have openly requested changes that break the rules, there are also lots of houses that have already broken the rules. I think if you understand more about the house you live in, there is a 60% chance that there are things that are against the regulations. For people that just want to do whatever they think benefits themselves regardless the law, how can one expect them to abide by the law (yes, traffic regulations to). I had a factory that wanted to deny delivery of my purchase order, I had to presented to them straight because I know the problem is solvable. Another factory wanted to bill me twice the price of my purchase order but only had a 30% of products that met the quality requirements; due to the fact that I know there are technical difficulties, I agreed that I would be willing to renegotiate the price if they would complete delivery; they never fulfilled the purchase order. I never pressed charges either, but I do have a load of half finished products that are waiting for a new solution.

I do not know that the real experience others have encountered, but how can the Government let companies of this ethic conduct international business?

George

Anonymous said...

I'd further like to touch on the subject of trade deficit, I think we need to take a good look at ourselves and ask, for the same products, how much are we willing to pay? If the answer is the cheapest price you can get it for, then trade deficit cannot be solved in near future. If you look more closely at the efforts to raise labor salary, you can bet that the problem will gradually be migrated to other countries even though trade deficit is not the major reason for such change. If we look more closely, we can see the deficit occur with any rapidly developing country. We need to understand this from a global development view.

George

Anonymous said...

@Ben Goren

I don't see how those situations are comparable, and having lived in Taiwan for nearly a decade now I don't ever feel bullied by the Chinese. Right now the Chinese bullying of Taiwan and threatened annexation is something I read about in the newspaper and on blogs. The closest I have come to feeling any life disturbance from it is when Ma Ying Jeou and the KMT try to trample on citizens rights, and in those cases I have marched in the street along with Taiwanese protestors.

I'm not downplaying Chinese ruthlessness or their expansionist intentions, that much is obvious. But what I am saying is right now the current situation seems little more to me than saber rattling to appease Chinese nationalism in China, and some issues in Taiwan that constitute an annoyance (no WHO, being routinely humiliated, can't call themselves a country, semantic issues) but in no way threaten day to day life here. It could change. But for now, I see comparisons to Nazi occupation of Germany or even to China's more brutal excursions in Tibet, Mongolia to be pretty far fetched.

I just don't think it's that big of a deal--I'd prefer a peaceable, well functioning homeland with a nebulous definition to armed conflict so I can call Taiwan a country. I can't tell you one instance living here that China or it's policies have ever made my life worse, or that of my Taiwanese family, or their relatives.

The KMT, on the other hand, we can talk about that.

Dave said...

George-

You have been writing a lot and such efforts usually should be appreciated. However, it seems totally unrelated to what Michael has said and just a deliberate effort of shifting focus when someone is losing an argument. For one thing, your understanding that ECFA is benefitting DPP supporters in the South (farmers mainly) is incorrect, and eleborating on "global development theory" won't change that.

Also some suggestions: don't listen too much into the pledge to eliminating "middlemen," of whom many are KMT's grassroots and buy votes for KMT in the countryside. Also, KMT won't be interested in setting up a simple, fair arbitration system, which can solve your problems, as the party itself just has too many business interests around Taiwan.

Just my two cents.

Anonymous said...

@David,
I think people look at politics from a too narrow view. So, yes, I think discussion of little things needs to be viewed from the top down so that we don't get lost in the forest. It does not matter who makes money as long is the development continues, which is what we have seen over the years. So why KMT related business? Because they have enough to deal as a team. I have seen this teamwork in action once when a company under a VERY large US business group wanted more money to fulfill a contract, and denied to continue work if we did not pay up. Under this situation you could go to court and spend lots of money to finally get stuck in mud; however, a different approach was taken that another Taiwan entity told the US business group that they would withdraw billions of dollars worth of purchases if the breaching company did not deliver. In the end, they delivered. So with whatever you do internationally, you need the reliable power to back up your negotiations. This is the power that DPP nor the general population do not understand. DPP could have gradually obtained it when they were in power, but they corrupted much faster. If a party does not have the backing power for negotiations, then you will be bullied.

Bear in mine that most of the local produce still come from the southern parts of the island. That is also where the percentage of DPP supporters is higher but income is lower. Based on what is presented in the news, this is also where a very large portion of produce export to the Mainland comes from.

So lets assume that DPP comes into power during the next election. If the Mainland government says "if you insist on independence we have nothing to talk about" what could DPP do? Note that KMT takes a position that "well, we know what the status is right now, whatever you want to call it, lets see what we can make of this situation". Note that by all practical definition, Taiwan region is an independent country established under the constitution by the name of Republic of China. Both side recognize that this is a fact that evolved over the years of history. Both side recognize that there should be no prerequisites in which way it should go, and that 和為貴 is a Chinese tradition. Sure, bystanders may think that KMT is pro-unification, in reality based on history, is that both Governments had claimed to be the official Government if the whole region which would normally be seen as a conflict. But when both sides decide to put this issue at rest for now and focus on other issues for the benefit of the region, they are able to move forward.


George

Dave said...

George-

Again, appreciate your efforts in replying in long paragraphs. However, again I have to point out you are still trying shift the focus by masking yourself with, hmm, some kind of bird-eye view that you claim can see the whole picture.

I beg to differ that there is no such things as:

" It does not matter who makes money as long is the development continues, which is what we have seen over the years."

It does matter a lot, as over the past years hard data showed although Taian's economy is expanding (actually at a lower pace compared to DPP era, though you may say so is every other country), real incomes of households are falling. Most people are worse off during Ma's rule, except for maybe some businesspeople close to the Ma regime.

As for this part:

" If a party does not have the backing power for negotiations, then you will be bullied."

Well, I have been invovled with financials in HK, Singapore and Europe, and somehow I don't feel things always work that way. In fact, what that did happen, many in the business community would call it out as a form of cronyism capitalism, which they strongly dislike. Also an arbitration system is a bit different from going to the courts all the time when this is a dispute, if you know how it works.

Also, to say that "DPP corrupted fast" shows ignorance of KMT's manipulations of media and judiciary system, based on which you formed you opinions, I assume. And you last paragraph also doesn't reflect the fact that China never really put the soverighty issue aside, despite how Ma wants to advertize it.

Apology if you feel I sound a bit rude and/or harsh, but there are very strong disagreements here. But again thanks for your taking time to express your thoughts.

Dave said...

George,

Also, it's very hard to bring the discussions further unless you specify what kind of "products" you keep talking about that are produced in the South. In fact you already know that in the South, the agricultural sector actually fared worse after the ECFA and the petrochemical sector didn't gain from the ECFA as China refused to lower tariffs for PP and PE. Barring these two, Taiwan actually doesn't have much manufacturing sector that produces the products you keep talking about.

Anonymous said...

@Dave,
"Also, it's very hard to bring the discussions further unless you specify what kind of "products" you keep talking about that are produced in the South. In fact you already know that in the South, the agricultural sector actually fared worse after the ECFA and the petrochemical sector didn't gain from the ECFA as China refused to lower tariffs for PP and PE. Barring these two, Taiwan actually doesn't have much manufacturing sector that produces the products you keep talking about."
First of all, are there actual data showing that they are worse? And as compared against the global economy and other economy sectors?

Second, petrochemical, with the pollution that comes with it, it seems to make more sense to produce it where it is closer to the large market. I would not want to live around that kind of factory, would you?

George

Anonymous said...

@David
“Again, appreciate your efforts in replying in long paragraphs. However, again I have to point out you are still trying shift the focus by masking yourself with, hmm, some kind of bird-eye view that you claim can see the whole picture.”

I am not claiming to see the whole picture; I am trying to view the whole situation to see how these little bits fit in reasonably or not. Most people don’t care to consider that perspective because they have not encountered such complicated issues and don’t know how to deal with it.

“It does matter a lot, as over the past years hard data showed although Taian's economy is expanding (actually at a lower pace compared to DPP era, though you may say so is every other country), real incomes of households are falling. Most people are worse off during Ma's rule, except for maybe some businesspeople close to the Ma regime.”

First, I think we need to compare relative to the global economy in terms of true economy performance. The reason is Taiwan relies on the global economy. The economy size has to be at least that of Korea the population for economy to be self sustaining. I would love to see your data. Second, there is also no data showing that ONLY businesspeople close to the Ma regime is less worse. The problem with Taiwan businesses is that most are small such that they are not technically strong enough to compete with other foreign firms, yet they are not able to compete in price. The key is finding that sweet spot in VALUE, which is not easy. Third, talk about household income, I think there is a vary large mismatch between the needs of the industry and the capability of personnel. People without jobs might not want to do low labor work, and companies cannot find people capable enough to develop technology to become competitive. I could not find a single person that knows enough to develop decent audio products. Believe me, I even taught in Graduate classes with hope to find somebody with the desire and capability. I also did some trail short term analysis projects hoping that professors could provide guidance, no results until I personally jumped in. How much would you pay somebody to learn from you?

“Well, I have been invovled with financials in HK, Singapore and Europe, and somehow I don't feel things always work that way. In fact, what that did happen, many in the business community would call it out as a form of cronyism capitalism, which they strongly dislike.”
I’m afraid I don’t understand this part.

“Also an arbitration system is a bit different from going to the courts all the time when this is a dispute, if you know how it works.” I have been involved with drafting of various contracts with the “arbitration” term, but we never when through a process. However, if one side decides it just want to default, as in the situation I had encountered in the past, the resolution is always too complicated and costly. This is why selection of the people you work with is far more efficient. Warren Buffet really studies hard before he deals with companies, does he not? Thus reducing risk.

“Also, to say that "DPP corrupted fast" shows ignorance of KMT's manipulations of media and judiciary system, based on which you formed you opinions, I assume.” You had better have proof of that or you can get into legal trouble pretty quick.

“And you last paragraph also doesn't reflect the fact that China never really put the soverighty issue aside, despite how Ma wants to advertize it.” Nor has KMT, it’s like “let’s not argue about who is boss right now”. How could DPP can handle the situation in your opinion?

George