Friday, July 09, 2010

Yilan Children's Festival, KMT largesse, Local Government

Taiwan News thwacks the Ma Administration for breaking promises:
However, after restoring KMT governance to Yilan after 24 years of Democratic Progressive Party administration, then KMT Yilan County Commissioner Lu Kuo-hua claimed that the annual festival, which had regularly turned in sizable profits, was "financially infeasible" and cancelled the Yilan Children's Festival in 2007 despite intense protests from Yilan community groups, the local tourist industry and thousands of citizens.

After DPP candidate and Lotung City mayor Lin Tsung-hsien made its revival the core symbol of his campaign slogan "Restore Yilan's Pride" last fall, Lu publicly recanted and proposed to merge the international children's festival with his own "Blue Water" Exhibition " and received Ma's public promise of "full support" of the central government.

However, the president and KMT chairman's vow failed to rescue the hapless Lu from being thrashed by Lin by a margin of 133,394 to 112,469 in the Dec. 5 poll and the president and KMT chairman, KMT Premier Wu Den-yi and KMT Yilan County assembly members have evidently "forgotten" Ma's promise.

Instead, the Executive Yuan agreed to provide only NT$2 million of NT$55 million requested by the Yilan County government to restore the cancelled festival, while the KMT majority in the Yilan County Assembly sliced NT$80 million from the county government's proposed NT$180 million budget on May 19.

....

The failure of the Ma government to fulfill such a public commitment will unavoidably fuel doubts about the credibility of its other commitments to Taiwan citizens as well as spark suspicion that the KMT government's actions in regard to the Yilan International Children's Festival reflect a a narrow-minded partisanship, if not a juvenile vengefulness.
This Taiwan Journal piece from '05 offers a compelling description of the popular festival:

The 2005 Yilan International Children's Folklore and Folkgame Festival is being held July 2-Aug. 14 at the Cinshuei Park in Yilan County's Wujie Township. Now in its ninth year since its inception in 1996--discounting 2003 when it was cancelled due to the SARS outbreak--it has become northern Taiwan's most popular summer holiday destination designed to delight children and the young at heart.

Every day, special trains shuttle thousands of families and school-organized student groups back and forth between Taipei and Cinshuei Park. Even in its first year, the festival drew about 100,000 visitors, and in 2001, an overflow of 800,000 people descended upon the park. This year, with many more destinations to choose from in Taiwan, attendance is expected to range between 200,000 and 300,000.

In 2002 the Yilan Children's festival attracted 970,000 visitors. This 2007 China Post article discusses its cancellation.

_______________________
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!

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Uncle Sam Demurs as the EU Advances =UPDATED=

As in Taiwan the legislature brawled over the pact, there were some interesting (non)-developments on FTAs and ECFA. First, upon hearing that ECFA had been signed, the United States eagerly rushed to support democracy, enhance its own trade interests, expand its influence in East Asia, and drive peaceful economic growth in the region by offering Taiwan a US-Taiwan FTA.

Nope, I lied. Uncle Sam doesn't need trade or economic growth or East Asian influence because the US economy is booming right now and our foreign policy has made us the envy of the world, while China is in rapid decline.

Oh wait, that's not right either. I'll try again.

Ok, what actually happened is nothing. David Shear, US State Department Official, speaking at a seminar in Washington, announced that the US thought that Taiwan had the right to enter into FTAs.
"Under WTO rules, any WTO member is free to negotiate trade agreements with other members as long as WTO standards are met, and we believe Taiwan should be able to do that," he said at a seminar in Washington, D.C. on relations across the Taiwan Strait.
This was the first time that US officials had expressed that thought, precisely, but I doubt anyone was much worried, since Taiwan already has FTAs with several countries.
Shear said, however, that "the United States has no plans to begin talks with Taiwan about an FTA at this time."

.....

Shear said the U.S. would reinforce bilateral trade and economic cooperation through the existing Taiwan-U.S. Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).
FTAs sure are nice when other people do them, but let's not and say we did, offers The Greatest Nation on Earth. The US official once again announced that ECFA was A Good Thing (he could hardly do otherwise) but left this little tidbit at the end:
As to whether any ministerial-level U.S. officials are likely to visit Taiwan, Shear said the U.S. does not have any such plan at the moment. The issue should be considered in a larger framework guiding U.S.-China relations, he said.
In other words, whether US cabinet-level officials visit Taiwan is contigent on whether it pisses Beijing off. Pssst...maybe that's why you should do it, guys! It would be great if the next official said that such visits were part of a larger framework guiding US-China-Taiwan relations.

About the only good thing in all this is that when I was off searching to see when exactly it was the TIFA talks stalled I got this hit first, which almost made up for the fact that it turns out that TIFA has been dead in the water since 2007 over the beef fracas. Plans are to restart at the end of 2010. So congratulations Taiwan, ECFA changes nothing between the US and Taiwan.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, an ECIPE paper argued that the time had come for an EU-Taiwan FTA under the WTO framework:
This paper discusses the economics and geopolitics of EU Taiwan commercial relations and weighs the case for a free trade agreement (FTA) between them. There is a widespread belief that China will oppose an EU-Taiwan FTA. The recent cross-Straits rapprochement, recently crowned by a trade agreement, could provide a window for Taiwan to sign trade deals with other partners. An FTA with Taiwan would boost some of Europe’s most competitive sectors in ICT, automotives, pharmaceutical products, and telecommunications, financial, business, transport and environmental services. Taiwan needs to position itself as a production platform for global markets. Taiwan is member of the World Trade Organisation - legal obstacles to an EU Taiwan FTA are minimal. But China needs to be reassured that the agreement does not involve recognition of Taiwan’s formal statehood.
Love that last sentence. Poor China, always in need of reassurance.

An EU-Taiwan FTA would be great, always provided that it didn't claim that Taiwan was part of China. Done under the WTO framework it need not do that. But this is all pie in the sky at this point.

Today's light humor is provided by this Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) poll on ECFA, which found, not surprisingly, that the good people of Taiwan are swooning over the pact. I'll let Taiwan Today carry the ball:
The poll found that nearly 61 percent support the ECFA negotiation results. A resounding 79.3 percent endorsed the government’s handling of cross-strait affairs via the institutionalized negotiations. Only 15.9 percent disapproved of the government’s conduct.
What a success! The polls have swiveled round overnight!

Stop the presses! KNN was kind enough to publish the whole poll. Many of the questions are loaded (and others notable chiefly for their absence), but number 3 is a keeper:
The former DPP government allowed 17 items of Mainland products, including towels, bedding products, clothes, and shoes, to enter the Taiwan market, to the detriment of these local industries. In the latest ECFA negotiation, the current KMT government neither decreased the tariffs on these 17 items nor allowed any additional items from Taiwan’s disadvantaged industries to be imported to Taiwan. Do you think the current government has protected Taiwan’s disadvantaged industries?
No leading the respondent there! This was conducted by the China Credit Information Service, which has old connections to...well, never mind, you can figure that one out from the name.

UPDATE: It took me a while to find it, but while MAC claims 79% support for the SEF-ARATS mechanism, this March Global Views poll found....7.4%. While 65% said that ECFA should be signed under the WTO framework.
___________
Daily Links:
_______________________
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!

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Who You Callin' Foreigner?

Parking in Taiwan is brutal. If you leave your train in the wrong place, it gets keyed.

Kenneth McCauley had an awesome letter today in the Taipei Times. And by awesome, I mean a letter that everyone is sending me with a subject line that says: WTF? He writes in the opening lines:
In Taiwan, there is a lingering perception of Westerners as neo-colonialists with gel-induced hair waves instead of powdered wigs. Western men are seen as personifying a veni, vidi, vici mentality. That’s a bad way to think, not because it stereotypes white people — Come on, whites deserve some stereotypes — but because it depicts foreigners as Julius Caesars (minus the tunic but still rocking the sandals), thus rendering Taiwanese a conquered people. Taiwanese shouldn’t see themselves that way and we don’t deserve that august comparison.

But while we’re pretty ordinary plebs, we’re not on a mission of Falstaffs come to evangelize, engage in lechery, booze and sacrifice goals on the shrine of carpe diem.

Nonetheless, there seems to be growing dissatisfaction from both young and old, though perhaps for different reasons, about foreigners dating local girls. Even MC Hot Dog, of I Love TaiMei renown, has felt the need to vent his frustrations in a song called TU about how sick it makes him to see foreigners, specifically black ones, picking up Taiwanese girls and also ranting that all foreigners in Taiwan are teachers — 90 percent is still not “all”!

Foreigners do come here to teach, and yes, it is easy money. As a result, there’s some reasonable resentment towards this Asia-specific phenomenon, especially when the foreigner is arrogant about his no-skills-needed high salary — but in future when everyone in the US is paying big bucks to study Chinese, I’m sure we’ll see lots of flip-flop-clad Taiwanese turning karaoke Thursday into “Thursday: The Only Karaoke-Free Night.”
There's a lazy linguistic agreement that everyone falls into, including me, that basically uses the terms westerners and foreigners interchangeably. It is due, in part, to the Taiwanese practice of dividing the world into only two kinds of people, us and foreigners, as if Brazilians, Afghans, and Norwegians were all of a piece.

Let's lay a few things out here which we should all try to keep in mind.

(1) a significant lump of foreigners born overseas who come here ARE here to make money, they are foreign workers in Taiwan factories, and much of the sex they have is forced, through human trafficking. The allegedly oversexed overwhelmingly white male teaching population is small relative to them; a floating hothouse world that is only an echo of the real Taiwan;

(2) in the case of the US (and I bet figures are similar for Canada, Australia, and the UK), the majority of foreign nationals in Taiwan were born here, moved there, obtained citizenship, and then returned here. An official at AIT once told me that there were 60-70k US citizens on the island, but only a fraction, like a third or so, were people like me, born in the US and having only citizenship there, but living here. Further, a portion of that fraction of foreigners consists of people born to Taiwanese immigrant parents in the US but who have moved to Taiwan;

(3) a large number of "overseas Chinese" -- foreigners who take advantage of the KMT government's racial concept of citizenship to garner benefits denied foreigners with the wrong ancestry. The OCAC says there are roughly 40,000 of these in Taiwan as of Dec 2008. To put that in perspective, there are probably more US passport holders born in Taiwan, immigrated, returned, and now living here than "overseas Chinese" in Taiwan;

(4) overseas brides -- all foreigners, and outnumbering any other single category of foreigners, I believe; and

(5) there is a large miscellaneous population of non-factory, non-teacher foreigners doing all sorts of interesting things who get zero coverage. For example, there are several thousand Indians in Taiwan, almost all of whom are working in the technology industries or going to school. As far as I have seen, few books or publications that interview "foreigners" ever discuss this large population. There are probably many other foreign populations existing in Taiwan that I have never heard of.

In other words, 95 percent of foreigners aren't teachers. They belong to some other category.

We lack the vocabulary that sorts among all these catogories properly, and correctly labels them all foreigners, and is free of the kind of assumptive racism that conflates westerner (with its inherent labeling of white) with foreigner as opposed to the local ethnic Han population (are aborigines foreigners? But they drop out of local conversations when people get sorted into neat categories). People who discuss "the foreign experience in Taiwan" are too often talking about a tiny community of expats who are totally unrepresentative of all the foreigners in Taiwan. You could just as well argue that the real representative foreigners are the engineers in Hsinchu who were educated abroad and have citizenship there (with children birthed there), but work here. Or the Indonesian factory workers. Or the Indian computer industry workers. Or foreign brides. But teachers? We may get all the headlines, but we're a privileged, tiny minority.
_______________________
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!

Cohen and Chen: those DPP obstructionists

China Reform Monitor summarizes:

During May’s U.S. – China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, senior U.S. officials were told by Chinese counterparts that Beijing would not brook any interference in the South China Sea, which, they said, was now among China's core national sovereignty interests, on a par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang. To underscore this position, China subsequently conducted naval exercises around the Spratly Islands – disputed with Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia. In response, at this month’s Asian Security Summit in Singapore U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the South China Sea was an area of growing concern for the U.S.: “We do not take sides on any competing sovereignty claims, but we oppose the use of force and actions that hinder freedom of navigation.” Gates also said a peaceful and non-coerced resolution to the Taiwan issue was “an abiding national interest,” and vital for the security of Asia. A new forum for defense ministers from ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. will meet for the first time in Hanoi in October to address these outstanding issues, Australia’s Canberra Times reports.


It's important to keep in mind the rising tone of China's expansionism -- the South China Sea islands, which no Chinese emperor ever owned or claimed -- are now a core interest of China.

China's hardline stance on expansionism failed to appear in an SCMP piece today on a related issue. Jerome Cohen had another one of those swing-and-a-miss pieces in SCMP that, but for its recapitulation of KMT talking points and refusal to mention the real issues behind ECFA, might have been good. Yea verily, he wrote long ago: (Ties that blind) "Improved cross-strait relations appear to have come at a cost to some civil liberties in Taiwan" but all that goes out the window when discussing economics. Today he and YJ Chen, discussing the role of the legislature, scribed:
Amid the arguments about the appropriate legislative review process, it is easy to lose sight of the Ma Ying-jeou administration's real accomplishment in dealing with Beijing. During the past two years, despite the mainland government's desire to avoid either acknowledging the legitimacy of the Republic of China on Taiwan or weakening Beijing's claim to sovereignty over the island, the SEF has concluded a series of important agreements with Arats without agreeing to Beijing's "one China" principle. And the latest agreement allows for institutional development in cross-strait relations by providing, for the first time, for establishing trade offices, monitoring agreement implementation, settling relevant disputes, terminating the agreement and organising a facilitating bilateral joint committee.
Look how carefully Cohen reframes and softens Beijing's declared aim that ECFA is the first step in the annexation of Taiwan. Down the memory hole goes that aim! Cohen then goes on to say that Ma's accomplishment is to get ECFA signed without agreeing to Beijing's "one China" principle, though in fact China is treating ECFA as a domestic matter. And no one knows what the KMT acknowledged privately.

Once China's position that ECFA is the first step in annexation is removed, you can then go on to claim that the DPP is being irrational. Which is exactly what Cohen and Chen go on to do. If you forthrightly state that ECFA is the first step in annexation, you cannot then go to paint the DPP as obstructionist and unreasonable.

Cohen, an old mentor of Ma's, and Chen then criticize the Ma Administration for
From the outset of its cross-strait negotiations, the executive branch has sought to minimise the legislature's role. The Ma administration did not submit any of its first dozen agreements with Beijing for substantive legislative review since it claimed no legislative amendments were needed to implement these agreements. Because the ECFA's implementation requires amendments of related legislation, the executive branch had to submit it for review. Yet it has been striving to limit the review's scope to prevent the legislature from modifying the agreement and to avoid delaying its start, scheduled for January 1.
The clash between the legislature and executive in Taiwan is old. Before Ma was elected I wondered in these pages whether Ma would face the same trouble Chen did, since it seems to be structural and related to the ROC's chronically weak presidency. Note that Cohen wrote in another piece last year:
2009: Without party control, Mr. Ma had a hard time pushing through his agenda. Not long after Mr. Ma’s inauguration, the legislature rejected the president’s appointments to both the Control Yuan, responsible for investigations of government, and the Examination Yuan, in charge of civil service recruitment. Concern about legislative approval also reportedly discouraged Mr. Ma from appointing certain experts to the Council of Grand Justices, Taiwan’s important constitutional court. More recently, the legislature refused to approve nearly half of the 50 “priority” bills proposed by the administration and adopted only four of the nine bills identified by Ma as “must” legislation for the just-concluded legislative session.
Cohen & Chen then go on to review the "is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?" problem of what ECFA is. President Ma, who gives every appearance of not wanting legislative review -- it is easy to see why! -- argued first that it was a treaty, which meant that the legislature could only give a straight yes/no vote on the agreement as a whole. Then it became a quasi-treaty, or the functional equivalent of a treaty. Meanwhile the legislature, which points to several precedents in which international economic agreements have been reviewed line by line, argues that ECFA should be reviewed by the legislature piece by piece. Good on 'em!

In the next section Cohen and Chen argue that the legislature should have the power to review and amend ECFA. Kudos to them for being on the side of right! But then they character:
Yet, in view of the current partisan political climate, the concern that a clause-by-clause review might substantially delay the trade pact's approval should not be overlooked. If the DPP acts reasonably and constructively in the review, rather than engage in the obstructionist tactics that the KMT fears, it will gain public support.
Hahahaha. Poor put upon KMT! Fearing those obstructionist tactics of the dastardly DPP! Cohen and Chen simply subscribe to the old "if you agree, you're rational, and if you don't, you're obstructing." Democracy is nice, provided it doesn't interfere in "rational goals."

C &C also err in another way in that last sentence, which is simply a KMT talking point, not serious analysis.
If the DPP acts reasonably and constructively in the review, rather than engage in the obstructionist tactics that the KMT fears, it will gain public support.
Remember that back in July of 2009 they wrote:
If the DPP continues its ostrich-like stance toward these historic talks, it risks losing much of its existing popular support.
As commentor Feiren noted in a comment on that post on my blog, Cohen and Chen had, in simply repeating China Post talking points, badly misunderstood the mood in Taiwan. The reality is the opposite -- by opposing ECFA, the DPP gained public support. The DPP would go on to hand the KMT defeats in the next few elections, satisfaction with Ma, already falling, would plummet into the 20s and remain there, and the public would never evince majority support for ECFA in any serious poll. The "obstructionist tactics" -- you know, like talking to the public, running in elections, critiquing policy, having debates, calling for referendums, writing commentaries and making speeches -- appear to be quite popular with the public. That is evidenced by the simple fact of the last few elections here, and by the current situation in which two areas in the north, often thought to be KMT strongholds, are now in play in the mayoral elections come November. That could change, but right now the KMT is unpopular at the national level. US commentators need to face the fact that ECFA is not popular, despite what occasional erroneous reports in the international media claim.

The hack on the DPP is totally unnecessary; it adds nothing to the piece.

Anyone who wants to gauge the national mood need merely look at the 104 Job Bank survey on ECFA. 104 Job Bank is Taiwan's leading internet job ad site. The Taipei Times report said:
The survey, which polled 2,292 Taiwanese workers on June 28 and June 29, found that 31.9 percent of respondents believed that the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) would likely lead to higher unemployment, while 15.8 percent feared that the agreement would make it harder for people to find jobs.

Max Fang (方光瑋), the online manpower agency’s public relations manager, said that less than 40 percent of the workers surveyed were upbeat about the trade pact, with only 13.5 percent saying the job market would benefit from it.
These figures underline those found in other polls.

Cohen and Chen have been awesome voices calling for change in China. On Taiwan, when dealing with judicial matters, they have also been powerful voices. I deeply honor and support this service to the people of Taiwan. But when it comes to economics, suddenly Beijing's aims are blurred, KMT talking points are repeated, and the situation on the ground is ignored. Why?
__________
Daily Links:
_______________________
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!

Hitler Cakes

A friend passed me a photo of this cake offered at a 7-11. That face can't be who we think it is, right?
_______________________
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!

Monday, July 05, 2010

Daily Links, July 5, 2010

Went to a local eatery today, first day of summer and lunch was packed. Americans think they are the kings of all-you-can-eat, but nobody can body-slam a buffet like a Taiwanese matron in search of shrimp. It was dog eat dog out there. Fortunately, plenty of goodies on the blogs this week....

BLOGS:
Disclaimer: the two facts that here is a picture of a pile of discarded shrimp carcasses, and below is the section on the media, are not at all related.

MEDIA:



SPECIAL
: Michelle Phillips in the Washington Times conducts a clinic on how to report on Taiwan with a piece on ECFA that blows away all other reporting to date: quotes from many knowledgeable players, identifies their connections, puts the political issue front and center. Excellent work!
_______________________
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!

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Chen Shui-bian Died for Your Sins: Land, Taxes, and Inequality in Taiwan

And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.

Outsiders know Taiwan primarily through its computer industry, but few understand that the local political economy runs on land speculation and development. Commonwealth magazine recently had a great issue that explored some of the links between inequality, land development, taxation, and income in Taiwan. In an article discussing land speculation, it described why government land is auctioned and then developers sit on vacant lots for long periods, observing:
Taiwan's convoluted property tax system also keeps the cost of holding vacant lots quite cheap.

Land in Taiwan has four different values. Aside from the actual market price, there is the "publicly announced land value," which is adjusted once every three years, the "reported current land value," which is the value reported by landowners used to calculate the land tax and can be up to 20 percent higher or lower than the publicly announced land value, and finally the "assessed present land value" on which land value increment taxes (similar to capital gains taxes) are based.

Taiwan's houses also have two prices -- the actual market price and a "standard unit price for housing construction" set by the tax revenue offices of each local government for residential units under their jurisdiction. This publicly assessed price has not been adjusted for 27 years. Legislator Lai Shyh-bao estimates that the current "standard unit price" is roughly only one-fifth of the actual market value.

The lack of transparency in real estate transactions has also contributed to strange practices. Jwo explains that many property transactions in Taiwan involve three contracts. There is a "public contract," drawn up to show government tax offices, a "private contract," which lists the actual terms of the deal, and a "fake contract," to use to apply for a mortgage.

Why are local governments so impoverished in Taiwan? One reason is the 18% interest on government employee retirement accounts, as I have noted before. But another is the low assessed values of property in Taiwan. These cannot be changed because political campaigns in Taiwan are, pound for pound, some of the world's most expensive. The article observes:

An employee of a prominent company, who is active in government-private sector associations, says that in today's political environment, only the profits on land speculation are sufficient to support an elected official. "Any election campaign now requires at least NT$100 million. Politicians won't have enough if they only rely on cuts from public works projects," the source asserts.

Because of these complex symbiotic ties between politicians and the business community, local governments never adjust the standards for the "publicly assessed land value," "assessed present value," or the "housing assessment value," all of which they have the authority to change without amending any laws at all. NTU's Hua vividly recalls the reaction he got when he suggested to a county chief that he increase the publicly assessed values of land and houses to ease the county government's financial woes.

"He shook his head vigorously and said to me, ‘You're an academic who doesn't have to deal with reality. I still have an election ahead. No way. No way.'"

Because local politicians are deeply involved factions that are up to their ears in The System of land speculation and development that underpins Taiwan's local political economy, it cannot be changed. Perhaps when Chinese developers start to muscle in on local land development, Taiwan's local faction politicians will fight for raised taxes as a defensive measure. Yet the effort that the KMT has spent over years in preventing factions from operating at the national level and keeping them confined to their local areas may mean that Taiwan's localities lack the institutional frameworks and skills necessary to carry out national-level politics of this nature.

The article notes that among the regions of Taiwan, in Taipei the tax on land is relatively closer to the actual value...
Chang-I Hua, an adjunct professor at National Taiwan University's Institute of Building and Planning, argues that the problem with Taiwan's land tax system is not low tax rates but rather the tax base. Of all local governments, Taipei City's present assessed values most closely approximate actual market prices but are still about 30 percent below market. The publicly announced land value is 60 percent below market value. Consequently, while land and housing tax rates may seem high, homeowners' tax burdens are only about one-tenth that found in the United States, according to Professor Hua.
One reason Taipei lives high on the hog is that the local government can actually extract something resembling meaningful taxes, in addition to its greater share of the national budget. Out in the less developed areas, not even that is possible. This disparity in institutional and financial power and resources between north and south is an inequality that seldom makes the news, but is one of the most important drivers of the island's political life.

Perhaps the new municipalities of Taichung, Kaohsiung, Tainan, and The City Formerly Known As Taipei County, with the greater power of their mayors -- recall that in the ROC system a municipality is the equalivalent of a province -- may find the wherewithal to bring land taxes up to more rational levels.That would be progress.

Progress, Frank Herbert once wrote, is a concept by which the terrors of the future can be kept at bay.

There is a National Land Planning Act, evolving from laws proposed and drafted in the 1990s, but it has never been made into law due to opposition from developers via the politicians in their pocket. A bill must pass three readings to become law; the Act had its first reading in 2004, nearly a decade later. Several laws have been passed then that have aided land developers, including the 1999 Agricultural Development Act, which allowed developers to annex and build residences on previously off-limits agricultural land. That act is chiefly responsible for the mushrooming of hideous cookie-cutter housing developments all over the island. Now in draft is another law that essentially allows anyone to open their own industrial district and do whatever they like in it, as one Taipei Times commentary interpreted the legislation a couple of months ago.

The absurdly low taxes on land are just half of the problem; the other half is that wealth in Taiwan is not taxed. The underlying tax inequities are a key driver of the island's rising income inequality. Says Commonwealth:

The salaries and wages earned by Taiwan's 9 million workers account for 72 percent of the reported income on which individual income taxes are paid in Taiwan (Table 1), a far higher ratio than the 56 percent in the United States and the 49 percent average across wealthy OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries.

In Taiwan, there are 7.54 million households, but only 5.38 million, or 71.3 percent, pay taxes. "Many of those that don't pay taxes are actually high-income earners. These people only pay NT$600 a month in health insurance premiums, and in the future, when premiums are calculated based on household income, this one-third that don't pay taxes may not have to pay health insurance premiums," a former financial official in the central government says.

.......

"Taiwan's truly wealthy people are not the ones you see in public. Rather, they are the quietly anonymous individuals who live in exclusive properties like The Palace," says a former financial official. In an unprecedented move a few years ago, the Ministry of Finance released figures on how much tax Taiwan's richest people paid in 2005, providing a glimpse into the severity of the imbalance. Out of Taiwan's 40 wealthiest people, eight paid no taxes five years ago and 17 paid only 1 percent of their income.

"The taxes that many people pay are totally disproportionate to their incomes," says economist Ma Kai. Many households' accumulation of wealth relies on gains from property and stock transactions, the vast majority of which go untaxed. Even if the wealthy have taxable income, there are many legal or "gray area" tax shelters at their disposal to help them reduce their tax liability, Ma explains.

According to the 2009 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, corporate income taxes paid by Taiwan's enterprises are only 3 percent of GDP, lower than the ratio in the other Asian Dragons (South Korea, Sinpapore and Hong Kong), China, Japan and the United States. Reported corporate pre-tax earnings, which account for only 18 percent of all taxable income reported in Taiwan, amount to barely 20 percent of the business income listed in Taiwan's national income statistics. In other words, at least 70 percent of Taiwan's taxable corporate income has fallen through the tax system's cracks.

Of course, it hasn't "fallen through the cracks." Rather, the system is designed so that it has many cracks for wealth to fall through. In fact, as the article notes, the more money a company makes, the less tax it pays...

Commonwealth also notes that the Ma Administration has taken the lead in George Bush style tax cuts.....

Over the past two years, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou has rolled out a number of tax breaks for companies and the wealthy. Only recently, to compensate big businesses for the loss of R&D and other tax breaks when the "Statute for Upgrading Industries" expired at the end of 2009, the government decided to lower the corporate income tax rate from 25 percent to 20 percent. But not wanting to be underbid when the opposition Democratic Progressive Party pushed a 17.5 percent tax rate, the government slashed the proposed rate even further to 17 percent as part of the new Statute for Industrial Innovation passed April 16. The bill also retained tax credits for R&D expenditures by large corporations and subsidies for small- and medium-sized enterprises to hire workers, even though the latter had nothing to do with innovation.

This so-called "17 plus 1 plus 1" package became the biggest tax cut measure in the history of the Republic of China. It was passed at a time when the country's finances are in their worst shape in the past eight years with the budget surplus of NT$40 billion in 2007 being transformed into a deficit of NT$500 billion.
The Commonwealth piece on the incredibly unequal tax systems describes a representative investor who makes over a million NT a year on investments but pays no taxes because it is all capital gains income. His daughter even applied for financial aid at school, the article says. It then links land taxes, income taxes, and inequality:
Taiwan's government has been unable to institute a capital gains tax on stock or real estate income because of a lack of transparent information and fears of rattling the markets. In the property market, those fears have left the government unwilling to replace publicly assessed present values (on which "land value increment" taxes are currently calculated) with actual market prices, which would boost capital gains tax revenues dramatically.

"Other countries have all done it. Can the government tell us why only Taiwan can't get it done?" Chien asks.

"If you say it's hard to get accurate information on real estate, I would agree. But all stock transactions are completely computerized. To say it's hard to get information is simply ludicrous. The real reason is the fear that the stock market will collapse," says stock brokerage worker Ruan Cheng-yuan.

"Taiwan is the only country in the world that uses an assessed present value to calculate housing and land taxes," says the economist Ma Kai. The publicly assessed land and house value usually seriously understates actual market values. "The Palace's apartments are publicly valued at only NT$3 million to NT$4 million," Ma says of the luxury property that reportedly has sold its units for up to NT$ 70 million.

Far from spurring innovation and upgrading by companies, low taxes mean that the government lacks the resources to stimulate upgrades of the educational and research systems, as well as supply the amenities that attract hi-tech businesses. It also means that much of the island's wealth is tied up in speculation in land and stocks rather than chasing investment in innovative new industries. Finally, the lack of a capital gains tax explains why so many locals so obsessively play the stock market and so obsessively buy land -- because if they win, they can live tax-free. In Taiwan, basically only individuals with salaries from registered companies pay taxes.

Why the title of this post? Rene Girard, the brilliant French thinker, argued in Violence and the Sacred that when social chaos threatens, societies resolve the problem of looming disorder by arbitrarily selecting an individual for sacrifice who is portrayed as both the cause of the problem and the actor through which it can be relieved: a scapegoat. Consider the large, and largely invisible, class of non-taxpayers described above, and consider Chen Shui-bian. It should be obvious by now that one of the most important social functions of the whole Chen Shui-bian affair with its lurid and loudly indignant emphasis on the vast sums passing through his family's accounts, was to provide a scapegoat onto which the sins of the island's quietly untaxed wealthy could be noisily unloaded and then sent into the political wilderness to die, silenced and alone.
_______________________
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!

June Election Pics

A sound truck makes its way through a small Taichung suburb.

Bicycling is this years in theme for showing the candidate is energetic and modern. This fellow found himself a road bike; lots of them pose on those big steel bikes.

A traditional appeal in northern Taiwan.

The polls might be crowded on election day, if the poles are crowded prior to it.

She uses this same photo in every election.

A favorite spot for ads is plastered to a building overlooking an intersection.

Taichung is a battleground. Here a candidate says the new upgraded Taichung city is looking for a new future.

Signs from candidates loom over a flea market in northern Taichung.

A candidate smiles over an intersection.

Praying for re-election.

Street corners and intersections are becoming tightly packed. There's a law that says the signs aren't supposed to block each other, as I recall. It appears to be more honored in the breach, so to speak.

A baby-hugging politico in northern Taiwan.

This candidate towers over his opponents.

Only five more months of these...

The ads in Taichung seem to all be larger than life. Note the presence of Tsai Ing-wen on the DPP sign. She can be seen on many signs in Taichung. I have seen no pictures of KMT candidates with President Ma this election cycle.

Outside Daya in Taichung county.

Gigantic Taichung ads.

Near the industrial processing district in Tanzih. "Fighting for the next generation!" she says, clutching a heart.

This ad is so emotional, it verges on melodrama.

Another politician who always uses the same shot of himself.

An ad looks down a cramped street near the train station in Taichung.

My Mark 1 eyeball says we have more female candidates than usual this time around. Is that true?

This candidate always represents himself in this quasi socialist realism style with the upthrust fist. I've never seen his picture on a sign.

DPP candidates share a sign in Taichung.
_______________________
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!

More ECFA round up

Let's start with some light news: the KMT complaining that some of the media have become tools of DPP.
部分媒體指稱民進黨昨天發動遊行人數高達15萬人。國民黨文傳會主委蘇俊賓今天表示,部分媒體大幅以民進黨所宣稱的數字報導遊行人數,淪為民進黨的政治宣傳工具,令人遺憾。
This is apparently a reference to Apple Daily passing around the absurd DPP claim that there were 150,000 people at the rally on Saturday. As the friend who sent the article along remarked: the KMT complaining about the media being tools? "That's rich."

The Economist turned in a remarkably balanced, informed, and conservative piece on the ECFA signing. Kudos to whoever wrote it.
Fear that it brings Chinese sovereignty closer has made the ECFA bitterly divisive in Taiwan itself. Its critics point out that China has never ruled out the use of force to bring about unification, nor stopped adding to its battery of coastal missiles menacing the island. They regard the ECFA as war by another means; a Trojan horse that Taiwan should have shunned.

These critics are right about China’s intentions—to win support in Taiwan. But there are still at least three good reasons why Taiwan (and the West) should welcome the deal.

First, it is, as befits a sop to public opinion, a good one for Taiwan’s export-oriented economy (see article). It not only opens up the Chinese market further; it also reduces the risk that Taiwan, the world’s 17th-biggest exporter, will be left isolated, by the “noodle-bowl” of bilateral trade agreements, in which its regional competitors are entangling their economies.

Second, its impact on Taiwan’s domestic politics will be limited. Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed by a few tariff cuts. A tiny minority favours imminent unification. A slightly larger minority would like the island to declare formal independence soon. But, since a declaration of independence might provoke a Chinese invasion, the vast majority would like to prolong Taiwan’s current, peculiar status of de facto independence. Politics in Taiwan looks like a battle between pro-independence and pro-unification camps. In fact it is about how best to preserve the status quo.

Since the alternative might mean a war, possibly even with America, Chinese moderates also have an interest in that status quo. That is the third advantage of the ECFA. In China it can be used to show hardliners that, slowly, progress is being made towards unification. China’s bellicose approach to Taiwan as it embraced democracy in the 1990s achieved the opposite: its sabre-rattling boosted support for Taiwan’s pro-independence opposition.

I don't think that ECFA's impact on domestic politics will be limited, as he says in point (2) -- it will likely cost Ma his job if it doesn't show results, and may keep him in it if he can convince voters they are better off. Ma's swerve toward China is a factor in the KMT's recent electoral defeats. Point (3) is quite an interesting take on the uses of ECFA.

The Economist piece is top-notch and should be read in its entirety.

AFP with a very strange article on ECFA. On one hand, it carefully documents Taiwanese fear of being politically eaten by China. It cites a wide range of individuals, and shows good understanding of the Taiwan identity. Consider:

China often buys political gains with economic concessions, but may have misunderstood the mood in Taiwan, said Zhang Baohui, an expert on China-Taiwan ties at Hong Kong's Lingnan University.

"They underestimate the identity issue. In the past 10 years, the people on the island have shifted towards a Taiwan identity. Fewer and fewer think of themselves as Chinese. No economic benefit will reverse that trend," he said.

Voters in the small, vibrant democracy could voice their anger over pressure from Beijing in presidential elections in 2012, analysts argued.

China should therefore mute talk about political ties, said Liou To-hai, a political scientist at Taipei's National Chengchi University.

"What China should avoid doing is press Taiwan to talk about political or security matters for two or three years or at least not before Taiwan's next presidential election," he said.

On the other hand, it somehow manages to refer to locals' fear of being annexed without ever mentioning that China has made it clear the pact is the first step in annexation. Really weird.

Taiwan News criticized Ma for being dishonest about ECFA, but the President admitted yesterday that the pact was about annexation for the PRC. The President's position is that Taiwan can take the benefits of ECFA while avoiding being swallowed.

The Taipei Times hosted a piece from a researcher at Chunghua Institution for Economic Research, with close connections to the KMT, that discusses the benefits of ECFA. He notes:
Taiwan’s early harvest list will allow 539 export items, with an estimated export volume of US$13.8 billion per year, to receive zero tariff treatment in China. This is already far more than we have achieved by signing FTAs with other nations. However, if we look at the more than 8,000 products Taiwan exports, we can see that only 6 percent of these were included on the early harvest list and it is therefore no wonder that manufacturers of items not on the list have been complaining.

A review of this 6 percent of products shows that half of them are items produced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and traditional industries, such as automobile components, bicycle components, tires, water heaters, filters, household appliances, hand tools, clothing and accessories, underwear, shoes, socks, bags, boxes, orchids and bananas. This shows the high level of importance the government places on SMEs, traditional industries and agriculture.

In the past, SMEs like these faced several problems. Because they were small in scale, as production prices increased they were unable to reduce costs through economies of scale. In addition, as the Chinese market had many tariff barriers, they were unable to take advantage of business opportunities in China. They were therefore forced to move their manufacturing base or follow their customers.
The CIER researcher says that contrary to opposition claims, ECFA will be good for small businesses, who will see tariff reductions that will enable them to remain in Taiwan. Let us hope so.
____________
Daily Links:
_______________________
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!

Friday, July 02, 2010


A developer in Banciao goes to town on Taipei 101.

I know everyone is heartily sick of ECFA, but that agreement is like your unemployed brother-in-law: here to stay. Today's offering is the pas de deux that involves Legislative Speaker Wang of the KMT and the Executive Branch over the status of ECFA. The Taipei Times issued a long one on it, well worth reading in its entirety. Some choice quotes:
The government yesterday defined the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed with China as a quasi-treaty and said the legislature could ratify or reject it as a package, but could not amend its contents article by article.

PING:
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who had previously said the ECFA was “more like a treaty,” was at odds with Legislative Speaker Wang Jyn-ping (王金平)...

PONG:
.....who said the ECFA was an agreement and not a quasi-treaty...

PING:
....yesterday modified [Premier Wu]'s stance on the matter, saying the ECFA was “not a kind of treaty,” but that its “contents, appearance and the nature of the ECFA makes it look similar to a treaty.”

SLAM!:
Despite saying the ECFA was not a treaty, Wu said the legislature can only vote to ratify or reject the ECFA and not review it article by article.

RETURN:
At a separate setting yesterday, Wang said it would be “very difficult” for the ECFA to clear the legislative floor.

The legislature is expected to call a provisional session on Monday at the earliest to screen and finalize the format in which the ECFA will be reviewed.

Wang said that even though the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) holds a majority in the legislature, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could still resort to procedural strategy to block the agreement from being put to a vote.

“Even if the KMT owns a majority of seats, it cannot get whatever it wants all the time,” Wang said.
According to recent reports, if ECFA is a treaty, then the legislature must accept or reject it as a package. If it is an agreement, then the legislature can review it line by line. Naturally the Ma Administration wants it to be a treaty.

Note the hasty backtracking -- to sign a "treaty" with China is to recognize it, which the KMT government cannot do. Thus Ma first said ECFA was a treaty, bascially following his usual line of sovereignty is whatever I say it is whenever I say it, then the government coined a whole new status of "quasi-treaty" to define ECFA. Hey --whatever is necessary to prevent the legislature from stopping ECFA.

This twisting to prevent legislative review is part of a larger KMT program of keeping ECFA away from democratic oversight, which also includes swatting down referendums. The interesting thing is why Ma feels he needs to avoid the oversight of a legislature his party ostensibly controls. ECFA steps on quite a few local toes and Ma of course is probably as unpopular in his own party as he is in the nation at large.

Even more interesting is the position of Wang. What kind of game is he playing? Is he trying to get the DPP to run interference for him to stop ECFA while piously claiming he has no control over the opposition party in the legislature? Is he warning Ma that this is possible and Ma better cough up some quid pro quo? Is he just trying to create the appearance that the legislature will do its job? Or just tweaking Ma out of old political rivalry?

Speaker Wang is/was a bitter rival of Ma, and lost a KMT chairmanship vote to the President in an election in which Wang had the support of Party elites while the Deep Blue rank and file all voted for Ma. In 2008 Wang was making noises about substantive legislative review of ECFA.
________________
Daily Links
Spain imported vast amounts of goods yet exported little. Her balance of trade deficit was large and had to be made good by the bringing in of more bullion. The fact that bullion imports were shrinking greatly hampered Spain. The fall in silver imports lead to the government minting copper coinage called vellon. 1599 to 1620 saw two decades of vellon production. This had a two-fold effect. First, it increased inflation. Secondly, it created a crisis in confidence. Such short-term remedies failed to work and mostly made matters worse. An economy survives on confidence. By debasing her economy, Spain was signalling to other nations that her economy was in trouble. No-one valued the new coinage. Ironically, the copper to produce the vellon came from protestant Sweden, was purchased in Amsterdam and paid for with silver.
_______________________
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!

Cultural Survival on Taiwan's Orchid Island

I'd just like to point to this awesome piece by Linda Gail Arrigo, with Si Jilgilan (Huang Ching-Wen) and Si Maraos (Chung Chi-Fu) on the Tao of Orchid Island, the nuclear issue, the confrontation with KMT marginalization and political control, and resistance and recolonization. A fascinating piece....
Since the opening of tourist travel to the island in 1971 and increased freedom of speech in the late 1980s, Taipower and the military installations remaining on the island have resorted to the buy-off tactics common in governmental and commercial dealings with environmental movements in Taiwan. Bribes have been dispersed from the government in the form of compensation for the salted-cement housing, and from Taipower in the form of land rents and “community compensation” or “appreciation” (hui kuei jin) for the onus of the nuclear waste site. Both have brought community and environmental disaster.

The compensation programs that began eight years ago placed large sums of money in the hands of local government administrators, creating unprecedented opportunities for skimming if those elected locally cooperated with the ruling KMT and Taipower. The Orchid Island community compensation amounts to about NT$90 million (US$2.5 million) annually (1), a sum supposedly slated for 60 percent medical welfare, 30 percent education, and 10 percent infrastructure.

As is the case elsewhere in Taiwan, the indigenous people, especially those in remote areas, are already dependent on and subject to control by the penetrating structure of the KMT, which for many decades held sway over their land rights and handed out patronage jobs in local government and in police and military forces. Community compensation exacerbates the problem. And the structure buys the vote at election time, perpetuating itself. Because of the corruption, a monumental amount of cement has been poured on the island in recent years. One major project paved the road ringing the island, but in addition to the road surface, a foot-high concrete wall was built on both sides of the road to keep the pigs out of the way of vehicles. (Wildlife experts warn that the wall may also block the spawning migrations of land crabs, traditionally a prized food source.)
Read the whole thing: it is long, detailed, and well worth the time invested.
_______________________
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!

SCMP hosts wonderful thinking on Taiwan

Compare this excellent missive, enriched with penetrating political insight and abundant local knowledge, to the piece of crap from WaPo below it. It appeared in today's SCMP.

+++++++++++++++++

Economic limits
Beijing is wrong to think that its trade pact with Taiwan will help its long-term political aims

Michael Fahey
Updated on Jul 02, 2010
As representatives from the mainland and Taiwan signed the historic Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement in Chongqing on Tuesday, pro-independence media outlets in Taiwan prominently ran a famous picture of a smiling Mao Zedong toasting a beaming Chiang Kai-shek during the 1945 peace talks between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Like this week's negotiations, those talks were also held in Chongqing, which served as the Republic of China's provisional capital during the dark days of the second world war. Four bloody years later, Chiang fled Sichuan for permanent exile in Taiwan.

While mainland and Taiwanese negotiators blandly denied any historical significance to the choice of Chongqing, those opposed to the agreement in Taiwan obsessed over the historical parallels. The lesson they drew is that history repeats itself: the KMT has once again been duped by the Communist Party.

They will be proved wrong. The agreement does not signal the end of Taiwanese democracy but, rather, the beginning of the end of Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou's somewhat one-sided love affair with the mainland. The real lesson that should be learned from the meetings in Chongqing this week and those 65 years ago is an old philosophical one: appearance does not always reflect reality. Especially in East Asian politics.

Much as the United States once believed that economics drove politics in China in the 1990s, the mainland now thinks the same about Taiwan. Beijing's strategy is to wait for the magical economic elixirs it has given Taiwan to take effect. Once the Taiwanese have tasted the benefits of direct flights, millions of mainland tourists in Taiwan, and the fruits of free investment and trade across the Taiwan Strait, Beijing is optimistic that a political accommodation with Taiwan can be reached through negotiations and patience. This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the arc of Taiwanese history over the past three decades and what matters to the Taiwanese now. During the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, a mass democracy movement forced the KMT to hold free elections, end military law and censorship, and normalise Taiwanese society. While Taiwan's politics are messy and its judiciary weak, Taiwan's vibrant civil society enjoys the same political freedoms as people in North America or Europe.

During Taiwan's struggle for political emancipation, however, it deferred the problems of economic and social inequality. By 2000, it had become clear that the economy in particular had serious long-term problems. Incomes stagnated and unemployment rose as the promised knowledge and service-oriented economy never materialised. To this day, Taiwan's economy remains overly reliant on low-margin contract manufacturing that is itself dependent on the exploitive and dehumanising labour practices seen in Foxconn's recent problems on the mainland. Taiwan's educated and ambitious people aspire to much more.

When the heroes of the democracy movement proved themselves to lack the imagination, interest and, most importantly, integrity to remake Taiwan's economy, the electorate decided, with considerable justification, to throw the bums out in 2008.

They put current president Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT back in power on the strength of promises that Taiwan's economy could be rebuilt by opening up to the mainland. And Ma has been largely successful in liberalising relations with the mainland as both sides have signed a series of agreements, culminating with the signing of the trade pact this week that reduces tariffs on more than 500 Taiwanese exports to the mainland and more than 200 mainland exports to Taiwan.

The problem for the mainland and its long-term political goals is that Ma has now hit the limits of his mandate to open up the economy and has expended most of his political capital in forcing through the agreement without a referendum, against the wishes of about a third of the population.

Like Japan, Taiwan is a society that prizes consensus. Unlike Japan, it is deeply divided as to its identity. Nonetheless, it is united in its determination to keep its hard-won political freedoms and the de facto but very real sovereignty that underpins its open society.

If Ma were to exceed his mandate by putting Taiwanese sovereignty on the bargaining table with Beijing, he would risk significant unrest that would damage his already unpopular administration even further.

He is politically vulnerable because, although Taiwan's economy has made a sparkling recovery in terms of gross domestic product and other conventional economic indicators, Taiwan's working people are waiting, with increasing impatience, for some of the benefits to trickle down to them.

They will be waiting for a long time since the main effect of Ma's mainland-oriented economic policies is that Taiwanese businessmen are being enabled to extend the life of their moribund business model even longer by relocating to the mainland to exploit its cheaper labour, instead of investing in new technologies and the service industry in Taiwan.

The ineffectual and now deeply unpopular Ma is also the last ethnic mainlander politician in Taiwan with national appeal. After he leaves office in 2012 or 2016, the KMT has no one electable who still shares the mainland's nationalist dreams. While it appears that all Beijing needs to do is to wait for Taiwan to rejoin the fold, the reality is that time is running out. It is probably in Taiwan's interest that Beijing chooses to continue to believe in the illusion that unity of the Chinese people is coming soon.

Michael Fahey is a Taiwan-based writer and political commentator

++++++++++++++++++++++

By "economics drove politics" Fahey is arguing that China is suffering from a delusion similar that which afflicted US foreign policy thinkers in the 1990s: that if we just made China rich and brought it into the international system, it would become more tractable, maybe even democratic. That has turned out to be a fantasy. Similarly, China is thinking that if it showers Taiwan with economic benefits, the Taiwanese will want to annex themselves to Beijing. Actually, as two decades of Taiwanese manufacturing in China have shown, Taiwanese who make money off Beijing do not develop any particular support for annexation. Beijing's policies will create islands of support in Taiwan by developing interests in favor of Chinese money. But there isn't going to be a sea-change, as interaction with Chinese generally leads Taiwanese to discover that they are a culturally different people.

I was having a conversation yesterday with a very dear Deep Blue friend, many years in the military, and steeped in KMT ideology and Chineseness, who identifies as Chinese. He remarked to me that he understood what the Taiwanese independence people mean. He went back to China for a visit this year and experienced it as "going home" and "being at home" among the people there. But in Taiwan, he experiences a cultural difference between himself and those who identify as Taiwanese.

Like myself, Fahey believes that ECFA is a status quo agreement that will enable Taiwan to continue to pursue its current type of manufacturing structure, the contract/ODM/OEM manufacturing, and thus defer the deep structural changes that island needs. Because ECFA is about maintaining the current system with its rising income inequality and wage stagnation, it will not create broad political support because its benefits will not appear in the pockets of most people, who will come to associate ECFA with continuing income inequality and economic stagnation. Hence China will at some point become disappointed in its quest to use economic levers to move the Taiwanese world. What it will do at that point is anyone's guess....
_______________________
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!

Thursday, July 01, 2010

WaPo *sigh*

This week offered a twofer of my pet peeves. The first was a Washington Post report which, as a veteran journalist here remarked to me, nearly every paragraph contained something to take issue with. Naturally, it is written by the Post's NY bureau chief, Keith Richburg, and John Pomfret, the former Beijing reporter for the Post. Though both have visited our fair island from time to time, they write as if they had difficulty finding it on a map. Comedy Gold: I had to read it twice before I realized that it makes no reference to the political side of the pact: one never learns that the leadership in Beijing has repeatedly said the pact is intended to be the opening step in the annexation of Taiwan to China. From beginning to end the WaPo piece is only about economics. A striking omission, especially since nearly every other media report has mentioned that, and of course, it is a staple of discussion in the local papers.
The free-trade deal is also significant to the United States, which under U.S. law is obligated to provide for Taiwan's defense. U.S. officials have said they view the deal as a sign of improving relations between Beijing and Taipei, and another sign that China appears less likely to use force in an attempt to unite with the island.
This paragraph contains the common erroneous reference to the TRA, claiming that the US is obligated by law to sell weapons to Taiwan. It isn't. That agreement has been known since 1979. Can we stop writing that crap? Further down, after sourcing information from Xinhua -- is there no other news agency they can obtain news from? -- they note:
Analysis by Taiwan's semi-official Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research said the agreement could create 260,000 jobs and add 1.7 percent to Taiwan's economic growth. Other analysts, such as Daniel Rosen and Wang Zhi, writing for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, have estimated that the deal would be even bigger for Taiwan -- adding 5.3 percent to its economy within the decade.
Actually, Rosen and Wang said the deal would add only 4.5% for a net gain of 5.3% if you believe that the economy would have shrunk .08% as they claim. On to FTAs:
Taiwan needed this trade deal far more than China. The mainland has signed similar free-trade agreements with the 10 member-nations of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and Beijing is in talks for similar deals with South Korea and Japan. None of those countries would negotiate similar arrangements with Taiwan -- which is diplomatically isolated in the region -- unless it had first reached its own deal with China.
Here Richburg completely ignores the intense discussion on FTAs, the fact that China has not promised it will permit FTAs, and so on. Other media have managed to note Ma's plummeting popularity, but not this piece. Also missing from the article is any mention of the fact that the President and his party have struggled desperately to keep the ECFA agreement away from democratic oversight, swatting down referendum moves by the opposition. Today, as the Taipei Times reported, President Ma defined ECFA as a treaty and demanded that the Legislature not give it a line-by-line reading and confirmation, in the hope that it would pass a simple up or down vote. Imagine if Chen Shui-bian had announced he'd signed a "treaty" with China!

Moving along, Richburg & Co. veer from mere error and omission into a full blown alternate universe:
Also, Taiwan has been badly battered by the global economic crisis that began in 2008. It was unable to jump-start its export-oriented economy without full and free access to China's massive market.
This paragraph is a complete mess. First, after saying (correctly) above that ECFA protects many sectors of the economy, it then describes the agreement as "full and free access". But worse than that, writing from RichburgPlanet, WaPo says that our economy couldn't be "jump-started" without that "full and free access". Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, exports started rising at the end of 2009. It's been six months of rising exports and falling unemployment -- with GDP reaching record growth it hasn't seen since the 1970s recently, and exports nearly as good as in the late stages of the Chen years (for example). In fact the rising economy has been a potent talking point for the opposition, which has asked, since the economy booms without ECFA, why does Taiwan need it? Do they not have Google there in the WaPo offices? Or what? With so many world class freelancers here in Taiwan, why does WaPo continue to source its Taiwan reporting from out-of-country Beijing correspondents and Xinhua?

The next two paragraphs are classics of their kind. Read them closely:
Still, the pact has generated intense resistance in Taiwan, particularly from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, which favors more independence from the mainland and fears that opening Taiwan's markets will lead to the island being economically swamped by China.
Xu Shiquan, former director of Taiwan Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the pact represented a "milestone" in relations. He said the pact was good for both sides and was not a matter of China seeking to subsume Taiwan economically.
That's right -- Richburg managed to present the DPP position without mentioning its central thrust -- that ECFA is the first step in annexation and then, in the next paragraph, manages to present Beijing's viewpoint, still without mentioning the political aspects of the issue. Surely that is a record! Instead only economic absorption is mentioned. It's as if Richburg had written a review of Titanic without ever mentioning the ship. For contrast, consider this superb piece from The Diplomat on the same topic. Its final paragraph:
China has been upfront about the fact that it sees the trade deal as a step toward greater political integration. If Ma believes that this is the best path for Taiwan, he should have the courage of his convictions and take a deal that clearly has political implications to the people. In the meantime, though, he should remember that he was elected president of Taiwan, not governor of China’s 23rd province.
Yea verily, rather than give the opposition a chance to speak, or cite any point of view at all from Taiwan, or at least cite an ostensibly nuetral third-party point of view, Richburg et al close with two propaganda quotes from a Chinese "expert" (read political warfare specialist) on Taiwan-China relations. By all means, let's give space in the papers of record of a major democracy to propagandists from China. Next time, why not save the phone call and just crib directly from Mao's little red book?

It's a tribute to the overall excellence of the coverage of ECFA out of Taiwan this time around that I haven't had the opportunity to rip a robustly feckless, mediocre presentation of the topic. Thanks WaPo!

A truly priceless aspect of the alternate-universe feel of Richburg's story is in that very same edition of WaPo, as a very wise observer pointed out to me, resides this piece by Steve Perlstein on the very issues that Richburg et al should have been reporting on. Perlstein writes:
The essential problem is that China was allowed to gain full membership in the global market system without having in place the fundamentals of a market economy. Its business sector continues to be dominated by state-owned companies financed by state-controlled banks within the context of what remains a largely state-planned economy. Its government strictly controls the flow of capital in and out of the country, while its currency is manipulated to maximize export-driven growth and development. And while exports are subsidized, directly and indirectly, there exists a web of formal regulations and informal prejudices that make it difficult, if not impossible, for many foreign companies to sell profitably into its domestic markets. Those outsiders who manage to break through invariably find that they have few protections from a system that is larded with corruption and largely unconstrained by the rule of law.
That's who Taiwan signed ECFA with, folks.

Also on tap, pet-peevewise, is another mediocrity from Robert Scheer, an example of my other pet peeve of my fellow progressives not caring about, or understanding, Taiwan. Scheer is still using outdated Cold War lenses to view the China-Taiwan-US relationship. He may be right as far as he goes about the military-industrial complex, but he hasn't a clue about what's really going on here. It's sad that it is tripping merrily along the progressive wires, with few calling it out for its vast ignorance.

Finally, don't miss SCMP tomorrow, where a person actually located in Taipei has some interesting things to say about Ma's political capital.
_______________________
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!