One of the key goals of the seminar, a nearly annual event begun in 1972, is to provide a channel for overseas Chinese professionals to participate in Taiwan's development, despite their residence and work responsibilities away from the island. There is no question, even from this year's event, that this remains an important reason for continuing the seminar. But there is now a pressing question, raised repeatedly by the participants as well as the press, about the best method for the ROC to utilize this valuable human resource. The answer clearly must be radically different from the past, especially given the speeded pace of reforms that have swept the island since mid-July last year.
The first seminar was initiated by Li Huan, then chairman of the National Youth Commission (and now secretary-general of the ruling party, the Kuomintang), and was coordinated and sponsored by both the Commission and the Ministry of Education. At that time, the National Development Seminar served a valuable function indeed; relatively few people on Taiwan were allowed to travel abroad, and there was considerably less contact with international trends and ideas in the areas of education, political and social development, and science and technology.
The overseas scholars and experts who attended the first and subsequent seminars enjoyed another distinct advantage over their domestic counterparts: they were allowed more freedom to speak their minds about the general state of affairs in Taiwan. In the early 1970s, the ROC was still in the early stages of democratic development, and the threats posed by the Chinese Communists across the Taiwan Straits created an atmosphere not conducive to fostering unrestricted criticism of governmental policies.
Further complicating the situation, the ROC was losing ground diplomatically. In 1971, it had lost its seat in the United Nations; soon thereafter, Japan severed formal diplomatic relations, with many other nations following suit. The sense of isolation on the international scene became greater as the ROC lost membership in various international economic, cultural, and sports organizations, often with insult added to injury because it was a founding member. These losses created a greater need for new, compensating means of communication. Then came a major blow. The U.S. ended formal ties in 1979, forcing a significant reevaluation of national security and long-range policy goals.
Throughout these years of adjustment—and they were not altogether devoid of painful redirection—the National Development Seminar forged continuing links with leading overseas Chinese who were anxious to see the ROC succeed despite the severe challenges it faced from all directions.
Premier Yu Kuo-hwa presents an overview of national development to the seminar delegates.
But the invited guests were not always "polite," and those attending the 1988 seminar were no exception. The visiting experts, coming from societies like the U.S. and Japan, and used to more freewheeling criticism of governmental policies, did not hesitate to make their opinions known. As a result, the animated seminar discussions were often hot news, with local papers eager to quote comments both constructive and critical that local leaders and observers dare not make. The meetings therefore served the healthy function of allowing people vicariously let off steam.
More importantly, the suggestions made by participants were often followed by governmental action. One government official claims that fully 75 percent of the 5,700-plus recommendations made by participants over the years were accepted and acted upon by the government. Assuming this is not an exaggerated statement, a corollary question is in order: "How long did it take?" In fact, it often took a decade for the government to act—for whatever reason—and participants in the past found themselves making the same recommendations year after year.
This, too, has changed. Sweeping social and political changes such as lifting the Emergency Decree that activated martial law, giving the press substantial new freedoms, removing many foreign exchange controls, changing regulations on imports and trade, and revised views about ways to deal with mainland China have now become commonplace news. In the past, most of these items had emerged as prime recommendations from the development seminars.
But what about now? What about 1988? This year's seminar drew heavy-gauge criticism for being irrelevant, a waste of money, and—worse—just a "political pilgrimage" for certain overseas Chinese to come and touch base with the "mother country." There is already some indication that all three criticisms have struck home and that future seminars will be better planned to meet what has become a wholly different set of national problems. In short, there may well be a move from "theory and rhetoric" to more "applied action," reflecting what in fact is a greater confidence and maturity in society and government alike.
A change in focus for the development seminar, while very much in order, in fact would be consistent with its history. By 1978 the seminars had become so important to national development goals that the Executive Yuan took over sponsorship, giving them more visibility and higher status. The change tied the meetings even closer to central government planning; in 1983, for example, the fields of science and technology were placed high on the agenda for consideration and discussion by the participants. This was in line with the government's concern about transforming Taiwan's industrial base from a labor-intensive, low-skill orientation to one more value-added and high-tech.
This year more changes occurred, as indicated by the seminar's title: "Moving Toward a New Era of National Development." Topic areas beyond the economy and politics were added to the agenda, with participants divided among a total of eight panels: politics and society; culture; education; economics; finance; communication; science and technology; and health and environmental protection. Even with the expanded program, there were complaints about the omission of specific panels on agriculture, labor, and diplomacy and international relations, especially since these are high priority areas of policy adjustment in the ROC.
Many participants and observers argue that "additions to the number of panels" or an "increase in the number of sub-topics for discussion" are not the key issue at hand when considering the future role of the National Development Seminar. The changes surging through Taiwan have in fact radically changed the whole environment, making old approaches to problems increasingly obsolete; similarly, the structure of the seminar is dated and would benefit from restructuring.
Dr. David Hsu, chairman of the finance panel—calls for more expenditure "on developing rural areas."
As one commentator says with reference to the way the seminar is organized and conducted: "The government should revamp the organization of the seminar. Instead of inviting a couple of hundred scholars for a one-time affair that involves as many receptions and dinners as it does seminar discussions, it could spend the NT$20 million on several smaller but longer and more intensive seminars or projects."
Underlying this point of view is a shift in principle, which flows from the broad transformations that have taken place in Taiwan, especially during the past year. Overseas Chinese experts are no longer a primary source of "information" for local scholars. There are over 3,000 professors in local universities with Ph.D. degrees earned from the U.S. and other countries, and a high percentage of government officials (such as the new Cabinet) also hold advanced academic degrees. These people are themselves "internationalized," and they are in fact more attuned to what is happening in Taiwan's overall development than those who live abroad.
The ROC has also regained much ground internationally, primarily due to its economic strength, but also because of its maturing democratic forms. As one local editorial writer stated: "In fact, coming to Taiwan in these days of change can prove more an educational experience for the overseas scholars than a chance for them to educate us."
This is a point well taken, and it indicates that the past procedure—broad-brush briefings on panel topics by the relevant government officials, followed by general panel discussions and field trips to major development sites—no longer fit the national development requirements.
Instead, observers recommend that a problem-solving approach be instituted: one in which overseas experts are given fewer general, rhetorical briefings and more facts, more heavy duty information, which is sent to them long before the seminar convenes. This means a "task" or "work-oriented" approach. The goal, in the words of one observer, should be as follows: "When they arrive here, they could then set to work with local experts—not set to talk, but set to work. They could help make plans and policies set by the government come true, rather than merely contribute observations that we could make ourselves."
But would a shift toward a more "problem-solving" approach be possible? Criticisms aside, the results of this year's seminar suggest an affirmative reply. With such long-standing general issues as martial law and foreign exchange controls out of the way, other priorities can be addressed, and dealt with in more focused ways.
Dr. Edward S.K. Chien—"There appears to be no substantial improvement in environmental protection since the 1980 National Development Seminar."
For example, Interior Minister Hsu Shui-teh said to the participants: "The government is studying measures to reform the parliamentary bodies, to institutionalize the local government system, and to revise election laws and regulations." And, he continued, these political reforms on the agenda are matched with other priorities: "...the government will also seek to improve the social welfare system, to promote harmonious relations between labor and management, to establish an unemployment insurance system, and to step up administrative modernization."
These are but a few of the priority governmental policies up for review, and in each case there are specific subtopics concerning methods of implementation that could benefit substantially from the advice and expertise of overseas Chinese scholars, especially if they worked hand in hand with local counterparts.
For example, Dr. David Hsu, a professor in the School of Business Economics at Southern Connecticut University, said during this year's seminar that "There should be more expenditure on taking care of the poor or the unemployed, and on developing rural areas. For instance, improving public facilities such as roads, education, sanitation, water and power supply in such areas, and vocational training and unemployment relief." Hsu also called for a change in taxation policy: "Taxation must be simplified. Simplifying the tax system and tax cuts are both trends of the time, because complicated taxation causes considerable tax evasion; it does not exactly result in revenue reduction. Instead it accelerates the growth of a responsible, dutiful populace."
These suggestions are all in line with current governmental concerns. But the question remains about the best means to achieve these goals—steps that overseas scholars and experts should discuss in depth with local academics and officials. In areas such as health and the environment, for example, overseas Chinese living in the U.S. have considerable personal experience that may be of great assistance to Taiwan's own handling of these problems.
"There appears to have been no substantial improvement in environmental protection in Taiwan since the 1980 National Development Seminar," says Dr. Edward S.K. Chien, a professor of civil engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "The problem of pollution Taiwan faces is the same as the U.S. faced in the 1970s," he adds. "To solve it [in Taiwan] without repeating the failures of other countries, enacting appropriate laws and cultivating professionals are two lessons from the U.S. which could be learned here."
Over the years, the National Development Seminar has benefited from just such deep concerns about the ROC's progress, and few participants or observers of this year's seminar would suggest that the idea be abandoned. As President Lee Teng-hui said in his opening message to the seminar, its major purpose is to bring together the "knowledge, experience, and wisdom of Chinese scholars at home and abroad for the promotion of national welfare." There is no change in this overall goal; what is needed is to select and implement the most effective methods to achieve that goal.
Whether or not the "problem-solving approach" is the best method to follow remains to be seen. But just as the ROC is experiencing "growing pains" in its rapid development of democracy, so is the National Development Seminar as it attempts to integrate and utilize the expertise of Chinese abroad with national priorities. "Progress involves not only changing the world around us, but also changing the way we go about solving the problems of that world," says one political observer. The comment serves as a clear challenge to future seminar meetings.