WSJ transposes a couple of consonants in the print edition of Shelly Rigger's commentary on the new President.Stuff piling on thick and fast today. CNN has a short piece ahead of Ma's swearing-in. Taiwan News makes some excellent points on the KMT's abuse of the voters to get Ma elected president. Rigger has a piece that is 100% CW in the Wall Street Journal (the print edition is misspelled, pic above), from the claim that independence is the desire of just a small but noisy minority, to the soft-pedaling of the threats China presents to Taiwan. Like most commentators, Rigger calls for China to be more flexible in the wake of the great opportunity that Ma presents. Although Chen presented exactly the same opportunity..... Ma was interviewed in Forbes the other day too. Finally, President Ma's Inaugural address is on tap. I'll be going over it tomorrow -- parts of it contain sly hacks on the DPP -- and note that "our homeland" is "Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu, and Taiwan." Some nice language about the election being an example to all Chinese, some good paeans to democracy. Heard the DPP boycotted the festivities too. That's ridiculous and childish.
Meanwhile the WHO rejected Taiwan's bid for observer status. Ma now has a whole year to strategize with Beijing about how to handle the issue.
[Taiwan]
24 comments:
The Ma Ying Jeou Era or The Ma Ying Jeou Error
eewww....you read the Wall Street Journal.
Ah! What a wonderful story to wake up on...I had nearly forgotten (sarcasm) that today would be the 20th. At least I have some other mindless commentary (Obama's bid for the White House and Clinton's bid to...screw everything up by staying in the race) to keep my occupied today.
But, really, did you see any other outcome with WHO? I made sure to keep my hope within so it wasn't shattered by the inevitable. Taiwan的ROC won't get into the WHO, but maybe PRC的ROC will be something different (cynicism).
...need to go back to sleep.
What does 'CW' stand for?
Hi.
I don't understand the widespread cynicism and hostility towards the KMT by Western expats in Taiwan.
I am a "shallow-blue" independent voter, and while the Taiwanese people have their eyes open about the dark history of the KMT party, and the Chiang family, they also understand and remember the dedication of the KMT apparatus to the economic development of Taiwan, just like the Japanese before them.
Independence is a romanticized ideal in the West. I am not a priori opposed to Taiwanese independence, but I feel there is a knee-jerk reaction among Westerners towards independence regardless of historical context. This isn't Oppressed Natives vs. European Imperialists. The situation is delicate and complicated, and I thought Ma's speech was an excellent summation of what the center electorate thinks, and certainly preferable to Chen's diplomacy-via-symbolic-antagonizing.
Well, the DPP had 8 years to declare independence from China and didn't. For better or worse, at least we now have an ROC president that apparently actually believes in the ROC. I always thought it was surreal to see a person openly hostile to the concept of the ROC serve as ROC president. You have to admit it was like being in bizzaro world seeing CSB taking the ROC presidential oath of office before an image of Sun Yat-sen swearing to defend China.
In anticipation of the Anschluss, I already have my "5 star flag" ready to drape over my Taipei balcony.
Erik: CW = conventional wisdom
Independence is a romanticized ideal in the West. I am not a priori opposed to Taiwanese independence, but I feel there is a knee-jerk reaction among Westerners towards independence regardless of historical context. This isn't Oppressed Natives vs. European Imperialists.
But it is a colonial situation how delicate it may be. I think it is a matter of values -- the KMT does not embrace any core values of westerners such as democracy, and killed an awful lot of people in China and here -- something like 5-10 million or so. It's hard for any rational westerner to support such a party, and for the most part the only ones I know that do are the ones who benefit directly and financially from its policies.
As for economic development, the KMT's work for economic development is largely a myth. The main drivers of development here were Taiwanese SMEs plugged into international markets, and US foreign policy that sought to make Taiwan a showcase for the cold war. The KMT, like any good colonialist, was largely in the extractive role, assuring good living for its own people -- the old soldiers with free housing and bureaucrats with sinecures and 18% interest on their retirement accounts.
It's not about romance, but about justice. Another core value of westerners that the KMT doesn't share.
Michael
Good riddance with Mr. Chen.
Hi Michael:
Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, I can't agree with the multiple factually inaccurate statements and ad hominems.
The stewardship of the KMT in the 1950-80s is almost universally acknowledged in developmental economics, from the farmland reforms to the creation of special-economic zones.
It's not about romance, but about justice. Another core value of Westerners that the KMT does share.
If you truly believe this, then there is nothing I can say that would profit either of us. Clearly, your perception of reality is irreconcilable with mine.
.
.
.
From PandaMa's speech:
In resolving cross-strait issues, what matters is not sovereignty but core values and way of life.
This portion of the speech cannot be underscored enough. What are, in Ma's opinion, "core values"? In the speech he mentions such adjectives as 'industriousness' and 'righteousness'. What society doesn't describe itself in these terms? 'Way of life' is also a fuzzy concept.
What is LEFT OUT of Ma's speech is where China and Taiwan differ with respect to 'way of life' and 'core values'.
And as to "sovereignty" being a secondary issue. This should be one of the DPP's talking points from now until the next election. Please tell me what other country considers sovereignty to be unimportant when you have an agressive nation pointing 1500+ missiles at you and making a law that states that military action may be required at their own whim.
Sovereignty is not important.
Jeezus!!
.
.
.
@anon,
You may have your eyes open to the dark history of the KMT, but to me, it seems that many KMT supporters are blind to fact that the KMT is actually a two headed machination.
On one hand, you have Mr. Ma, a smooth talking, but unproven leader who hides his true intentions. What I mean is which side of the fence is he on? Taiwan or China? Sorry, but you can't have both. This is year 2008, not dreamland where some in the KMT still cling to the laughable idea that they are the real authority in mainland China.
The other head of the KMT is the traitorous Lein Chan faction that the Taiwanese KMT supporters seem to be oblivious to. Here is a spineless creature that goes behind the back of the real government to make deals with the CCP (and right after the ASL was passed to make matters worse). This core group of deep blue politicians want nothing to do with the West and specifically the USA even though many of them were able to get their education from the USA and make their $ from US govt aid in the 50s-60s-70s. I have posted this clip 2x before, but I will post it again here fyi because I think this sums up the position of the shadow KMT perfectly: From Oct 2005:
Why the irritation over such support? Because at a philosophical level Lee’s opponents hold the US and its ideals in high and barely disguised contempt, despite the formidable number of them that sucked on the teat of the American education system and whose very survival in this place has been paid for over the decades by the US military. To this day, deep inside the heart of the unificationist ideologue, there lives derision toward the barbaric West and a longing for the time when the center of a true civilization — Beijing, presumably — can return to its rightful place as the capital of not the Middle Kingdom, as it is usually mistranslated, but the Central Kingdom.
Another good article is from April 2005:
The dominant personality trait among Taiwanese is opportunism. For the last three centuries, bettering the lot of oneself and one’s family usually meant some kind of messy compromise with unaccountable and alien power holders. The moral has always been to seek advantage where one can, and don’t pay too much attention to principle. And that, unfortunately, is the way the trips to China are viewed.
As MT has clearly pointed out many times here on this blog (with statistical data and analysis), the SMEs were the real drivers of Taiwan's success and the Dangwei were the real drivers of political reform, not the KMT. The KMT to this day still wants a Singapore style, one party authoritarian rule. This is coming for you. Actually, it is already here with the EY,LY,JY and CY in KMT control. The DPP is completely marginalized and finished. (mainly due to petty corruption, but also a big part due to KMT stubbornness and a one sided pro-china media over the last 8 years). There is also the strange adulation that the KMT'ers hold for CKS and CCK when in fact, both of them are proven mass murderers. (no matter how much you want to position CCK to be the kind, considerate grandfather). KMT'ers refuse to open any book on this topic face the truth.
Furthermore, regarding a post made about a week ago on Michael's site (or was it the Redhead in Taiwan site?), the discussion was about why there was no reasonable KMT writers such as MT that could articulate the KMTs real positions on foreign relations, China, the economy, reasons why certain bank co-ops still exist, reasons why the 18% tax kickback still exists, reasons why the KMT businesses in China are allowed to do and say what they do, reasons why LC and the KMT chairman go to China, etc. etc. etc. The answer is because deep down, they can't say what the truth is ~ Which is, in their minds, they want to say F#cku to the west who they think they are racially superior to. The map link that MT posted a few days ago illustrates this evil empire mentality clearly. OK sure, you can say its for fun, but is it really?
Lastly, what about the asset issue? This has not been resolved. Do the KMT supporters honestly think the party should keep public property? This is your money. (and mine too since I am a taxpayer) Why should the party have the rights to these assets? Why don't you stand up for this. It is not a DPP issue. It is a honest, responsible government issue.
Any input on the gas price hike?
It seems that if anyone can go to the bottom of that story, it is you.
"Clearly, your perception of reality is irreconcilable with mine."
Perhaps because you are living in a dreamyland..... ;)
"Clearly, your perception of reality is irreconcilable with mine."
Perhaps because you are living in a dreamyland..... ;)
Reeb said:
"Which is, in their minds, they want to say F#cku to the west who they think they are racially superior to."
As much as I hate to admit it, many Taiwanese unificationists probably do hold beliefs like that so colorfully paraphrased by Reeb.
But this shouldn't be a revelation. We all know that the KMT was created from a collection of Cantonese "secret societies" (funded mainly by the Cantonese community in the USA and Japan) who were outraged by the Manchu government's ceding concessions and territory to foreigners. While the Manchu emperor may have cavalierly discarded Taiwan to Japan, this, and similar actions with regard to other foreigners, sparked outrage among ordinary Chinese. Thus, the KMT was born out of the Chinese people's rage against the Manchus for what they perceived as failure to stand up to the west and Japan. As we all also know, the creed of the KMT is Sun Yat-Sen's "Three Principles of the People" the first and most important of which "民族主義" (or roughly "nationalism") means riding China of foreign domination.
Yes, the KMT strives for a powerful and respected China. But only if you view international relations as a zero-sum game would you consider the KMT worldview to be a threat to anyone.
To point out the obvious, Ma won, and it wasn't even close - exactly who is living in the dreamland? Or are we poor natives so hoodwinked by the KMT that we need enlightened foreigners to show us the error of our ways?
The KMT has engaged in political suppression, including imprisonment of political dissidents and violent quashing of protests. But the KMT doesn't stand alone in a historical vacuum. Who would you have rule Taiwan? Hypothesizing about some native, democratic Taiwan just doesn't fit post-WWII political reality. Would you rather have PRC rule of Taiwan instead? What Asian country can you point to that has a better human-rights track record than the KMT (other than Japan)?
KMT rule was corrupt and violent, but better than all other alternatives. In 1950, Taiwan was poorer than Costa Rica. Taiwan's success was not pre-ordained. The KMT made a lot of good decisions, as well as bad, selfish, and immoral ones. Taiwan is not a Western country, much less an Anglo-American one. Many ideals of government are different. We do not have trial by jury, or constitutional rights to privacy. This is not to say that these things aren't good, I'm just illustrating that some things are different.
If you expect the Taiwanese electorate or the Taiwanese government to reflect your preferences, you will be eternally disappointed.
Finally, the case for giving credit to the KMT for Taiwan's economic expansion is a slam-dunk. To name just one, the KMT was directly responsible for ITRI, which invested in semiconductor technology, eventually spun-off as UMC and TSMC. The Hsinchu Science Park, a KMT-government initiative, which created Taiwan's tech-economy, which constitutes the bulk of Taiwan's exports.
Outside of the little world of Western-expat-in-Taiwan blogs, no one denies the success of KMT economic policy. Not even DPP legislators.
My original question was "I don't understand the widespread cynicism and hostility towards the KMT by Western expats in Taiwan." I have my answer.
Is that an echo I hear in the echo chamber?
Outside of the little world of Western-expat-in-Taiwan blogs, no one denies the success of KMT economic policy. Not even DPP legislators.
LOL. There's an extensive debate on it in academia. Start with Alice Amsden's famous 1979 paper on state-led development and go through the debates on flexible specialization and the controversial work on human capital and growth in the late 1990s. See also Neil Jacoby's book on US aid, which points out that but for US AID intervention, there would no small Taiwanese capitalist sector -- the Chiang regime wanted to stamp it out.
But I guess those academics who debate the role and importance of the state in Taiwan's economic development are just a bunch of ignorant foreigners.
In 1950, Taiwan was poorer than Costa Rica.
That was because of the extensive looting and economic dislocation suffered under the KMT. The reality is that in the late 1930s per capita incomes here matched or exceeded Japan itself. It took until the mid 1960s to recover those levels here. Taiwan lost a whole generation of progress thanks to the KMT and to WWII.
Your reference to ITRI is interesting. When the Science Park opened there was already an extensive electronics sector in Taiwan -- more than 50 firms moved into the park right away. Semiconductors are an outstanding government success but of course they built on the solid foundation already laid by RCA, Philips, Mitsubishi, and GIM through FDI in Taiwan. But for successes like semiconductors there were also numerous failures, like the GM engine project.
The debate over the KMT and its role in the economic miracle is a complex one.
Michael
Hi Michael:
First, thank you for posting my comments. I understand that this is your blog, and that freedom of speech is a privilege, not a right on private (virtual) property. Second, I don't entertain any delusions that what I say will change your opinion whatsoever. This is purely for the benefit of any reader who stumbles upon this exchange.
Start with Alice Amsden's famous 1979 paper on state-led development and go through the debates on flexible specialization and the controversial work on human capital and growth in the late 1990s.
Interesting that you would mention Alice Amsden. I've been to several of her lectures, and I think she would be quite amused to find that you believe her research shows the failure of KMT economic policy.
Quoting individual authors and works could take a long time to argue through them all. My point is, no [widely-published] developmental economist doubts the importance of KMT policy to Taiwan's economic expansion. They might take issue with certain aspects of the policy, such as import-substitution, or human-capital development, but no one will deny the effectiveness of KMT policy in its entirety.
There is debate over what parts of KMT policy were effective, there is no debate over whether KMT economic policy, as a whole, was effective.
That was because of the extensive looting and economic dislocation suffered under the KMT. The reality is that in the late 1930s per capita incomes here matched or exceeded Japan itself. It took until the mid 1960s to recover those levels here. Taiwan lost a whole generation of progress thanks to the KMT and to WWII.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that being bombed by Allied planes, having transports sunk by Allied submarines, having Taiwanese-Japanese troops killed by Allied troops, and export markets occupied by Allied forces had something to do with it.
If you want to claim that the economic contraction of Taiwan had more to do with the KMT than total global war, you're going to need some evidence. I don't doubt that some contraction due to the KMT - resettling KMT refugees and resisting imminent PRC invasion would have some effect. And, yes, looting. The question is how much.
Your reference to ITRI ... Semiconductors are an outstanding government success but of course they built on the solid foundation already laid by RCA, Philips, Mitsubishi, and GIM through FDI in Taiwan.
Again, you can't take Taiwan's success for granted. There were a lot of poor nations that needed American economic support against Communism in the 1950s. FDI chose Taiwan and a few others. Why? Of the nations that did receive substantial FDI, only Taiwan (and South Korea, Singapore) leveraged that FDI into a major domestic economic sector. Why? It wasn't just FDI, it was all the supporting policies, by the KMT, that made it work. If only economic development were as easy as FDI.
Some government initiatives failed. That doesn't discredit the ones that didn't. And you're plain wrong about the domestic semiconductor industry. There was not a single fab plant in Taiwan until the KMT government decided to build one.
The debate over the KMT and its role in the economic miracle is a complex one.
Yes, the debate is about what caused the miracle and how to replicate it. There's no debate on whether the KMT deserves credit for it.
That was because of the extensive looting and economic dislocation suffered under the KMT. The reality is that in the late 1930s per capita incomes here matched or exceeded Japan itself. It took until the mid 1960s to recover those levels here. Taiwan lost a whole generation of progress thanks to the KMT and to WWII.
WWII ended at 1945 and allies bombed the hack out of Taiwan. Also, how do you explain the Kyoto U article on how much money KMT put into Taiwan economy during 1949 and 1950. You do know your opinions are not facts without numbers to back it up.
http://tinyurl.com/2cusvs
Oh btw, here is the Taiwan government budget to 2005, care to let me know where the budget cut is since you seem to repeat that a lot. I haven't seen your reply to my question on the redhead blog.
http://tinyurl.com/4md6ah
And please stop saying democracy is a core value of westerners. It is not! I am probably more westernized than you (i.e. live in the US, upper-middle class, FICO score over 760, own a house fully paid etc). I also find it extremely disturbing that you stated that your son doesn't (didn't?) speak Chinese while he was born in Taiwan. Do you know what we call such person in the US (i.e. 2nd generation Mexican who can't speak English. Although there is nothing wrong here in the US since America doesn't have an national language)?
Interesting that you would mention Alice Amsden. I've been to several of her lectures, and I think she would be quite amused to find that you believe her research shows the failure of KMT economic policy.
Since I never said that, it's hard to imagine why you're saying this. I simply pointed to Amsden as a starting point for the debates on the state's role in development in Taiwan. Why not relax and read more clearly?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that being bombed by Allied planes, having transports sunk by Allied submarines, having Taiwanese-Japanese troops killed by Allied troops, and export markets occupied by Allied forces had something to do with it.
They did. But as Kerr points out, the effect of bombing etc was limited and recoverable. The real disaster was the arrival of the looters in '45 and the subsequent stripping of the island's industrial base, followed by the deliberate execution of its socioeconomic leadership. And of course, the importation of China's inflation and incompetent governance.
Again, you can't take Taiwan's success for granted. There were a lot of poor nations that needed American economic support against Communism in the 1950s. FDI chose Taiwan and a few others. Why? Of the nations that did receive substantial FDI, only Taiwan (and South Korea, Singapore) leveraged that FDI into a major domestic economic sector. Why? It wasn't just FDI, it was all the supporting policies, by the KMT, that made it work. If only economic development were as easy as FDI.
Taiwan received FDI because the US government shoved US firms into going there due to its policy of making Taiwan into a Cold War showcase, as I think you note up there. As important as the FDI was massive American aid. But Taiwan's success was built on SMEs, a sector neglected by the government, and one it wanted to get rid of in its early days. I can't imagine why you think I take Taiwan's success for granted.
Of course the KMT deserves some credit for doing some things well. Most governments do manage to do a few things well. But the debate is more complex than that.
And I've noticed that you've completely failed to mention the State's extensive colonial extractive mechanisms -- the pricing mechanisms that extracted something like 22% of the value of farm production and flipped it to large businesses owned by the Party and its cohorts, etc.
The issues are complex, and the case is hardly a slam-dunk.
Michael
Hi Michael:
Since I never said that, it's hard to imagine why you're saying this. I simply pointed to Amsden as a starting point for the debates on the state's role in development in Taiwan. Why not relax and read more clearly?
I am relaxed, and rest assured that I have read what you have written very clearly. Obviously, a bit of review is in order...
What I said: "Outside of the little world of Western-expat-in-Taiwan blogs, no one denies the success of KMT economic policy. Not even DPP legislators."
Your response: "LOL. There's an extensive debate on it in academia. Start with Alice Amsden's famous 1979 paper on state-led development and go through the debates on flexible specialization and the controversial work on human capital and growth in the late 1990s."
Your claim, specifically, was that there is academic debate about the success of KMT economic policy. My claim was that "[while] there is debate over what parts of KMT policy were effective, there is no debate over whether KMT economic policy, as a whole, was effective."
So, to answer your question, why I said that, was because Alice Amsden's research cannot possibly be construed as evidence refuting my claim, or as evidence supporting yours.
Your original claim: "As for economic development, the KMT's work for economic development is largely a myth."
Which you most recently restated as: "Of course the KMT deserves some credit for doing some things well. Most governments do manage to do a few things well. "
That is slightly closer to my position, which was and remains as: "The stewardship of the KMT in the 1950-80s is almost universally acknowledged in developmental economics, from the farmland reforms to the creation of special-economic zones."
The research you mention supports my position.
You have two other points, but it has never been my contention that the KMT didn't loot Taiwan, nor that FDI didn't contribute to Taiwan's growth. My only claim is that the KMT deserves credit for Taiwan's economy, and my exact words are shown above.
You fixate on SMEs, but what was the environment that allowed SMEs to grow? What about KMT investment in infrastructure? Education? Tax and banking reform? You claim that SMEs grew in spite of KMT neglect - then why haven't these irrepressible SMEs created similar success in other Asian nations? If SMEs were neglected in Taiwan, then they were neglected even more in just about every other Asian country.
And there are several points I presented that you have not addressed:
+ Realistic historical alternatives. Who would you have rule Taiwan instead?
+ Semiconductor industry. There was not a single fab plant until the KMT decided to build one. How can you explain the success of Taiwan's semiconductor industry without direct KMT intervention?
+ Translating FDI into a sustainable economy. Lots of countries get FDI. Lots of countries have been propped up by the US. Only Taiwan succeeded. Why?
I forgot to mention another aspect of why many of us don't respect the KMT, that is the unsolved murder of Lin Yi-hsiung's family. (and many others). The fact that many of these criminals are still part of the KMT and collecting a salary/pension is unacceptable.
@arty-
I also find it extremely disturbing that you stated that your son.....
Arty, that wasn't necessary. You are a moron. Take your FICO score and your advanced degrees that you keep bragging about and shove them up your ass.
So, to answer your question, why I said that, was because Alice Amsden's research cannot possibly be construed as evidence refuting my claim, or as evidence supporting yours.
I NEVER SAID IT REFUTED MY CLAIM OR SUPPORTED YOURS I DIDN'T TAKE A POSITION ON AMSDEN EXCEPT THAT SHE WAS A GOOD PLACE TO GET INTO THE DEBATE.
Is that not clear? What's not clear about that?
As for tax and banking reforms, the SMEs that drove Taiwan's growth derived few benefits from them. SMEs were largely financed in the underground market during the heyday of growth here (see Tyler Biggs' work). The inefficient government banks paid them no attention. The financial markets that formed the basis of the SME economy were extensions of traditional practices and systems that long predate the KMT. The KMT's management of the financial sector existed primarily to prevent the emergence of competing private power bases and thus severely constrained the ability of Taiwan's conglomerates to grow. That they did so occurred in spite of government policy. See the discussion in Field's book on enterprise and the state in Taiwan and Korea. Thus we had during the high growth period a "unique dynamic of public restrictions and private disregard." This is often the pattern in KMT practices, this perverse success of bad policy, where inefficient and incompetent public governance leads to the development of efficient but partly or wholly underground alternatives (for example, the investment trust companies, who accepted demand deposits and paid interest above commercial bank rates, both illegal, or the extensive use of illegal postdated checks as the main form of business loans), or the way that Taiwanese were excluded from the government and thus Taiwanese talent went into business.
The financial sector also raises the uncomfortable issue of KMT private businesses versus the government: for example, one reason that the government had such difficulty handling illegal activities by large enterprises is that so many were owned by the KMT. The smooth and inherent identification that you make between "the KMT" and "the government" does not exist in reality. The Party placed itself above society and the government, and acted extractively toward both.
I have no problem with identifiable government successes such as the semiconductor industry. As I noted. But on the whole, the KMT "stewardship" is a myth; much of the success of Taiwan's economy came in spite of KMT mismanagement and I am glad you mentioned the financial sector; it's a good example. As Tom Gold noted, many of the obnoxious business practices in today's Taiwan stem from the KMT's wholesale destruction of the rule of law known under the Japanese.
+ Realistic historical alternatives. Who would you have rule Taiwan instead?
How should I know? The issue is not whether there is a better alternative to the KMT but whether the "stewardship" of the KMT is largely a myth that covers a complex and debateable reality that spans a wide range of issues.
+ Translating FDI into a sustainable economy. Lots of countries get FDI. Lots of countries have been propped up by the US. Only Taiwan succeeded. Why?
Well, there's Japan, South Korea, Singapore, most of Western Europe, etc etc etc. Your claim that "only Taiwan succeeded" is absurd. Successful use of FDI can be based on many different factors, of which policy is only one.
Michael
Arty, that wasn't necessary. You are a moron. Take your FICO score and your advanced degrees that you keep bragging about and shove them up your ass.
Yes, I am a moron (although an @sshole will probably be more fitting). Except apparently you guys has no answer for the numbers that I provided. Btw, these numbers are just for others reading the blog showing how ridiculous your arguments are. I don't expect anyone who lost sight for years able to see again so soon.
Post a Comment