User:JIANG SIYU/沙盒

no hurry, no impatience

Don't be in a hurry to have patience was originally the motto given by Emperor Kangxi to the fourth son of the Emperor Yin Zhen (after that was for Emperor Yongzheng) But now if it is related to the policy or political and economic stance then it generally refers to the Republic of China President Lee Teng-hui's administration, the Republic of China government's investment policy towards mainland China with the tendency of restriction or inhibition. The phrase "no hurry, no impatience" was put forward by the then President of the Republic of China, Lee Teng-hui, on September 14, 1996, at the National Operators' Conference, as a proposition for Taiwan's business community to invest in mainland China. Chief Executive Hsiao Wan-chang also emphasized in 1998 that the prerequisite for reviewing and adjusting the "no haste, no impatience" policy is that "the CCP eliminates its hostility toward us, ends the coexistence of hostilities, respects the reciprocal partition of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, treats us in an equal and reciprocal manner, and no longer blocks our space for international activities, and that the rights and interests of Taiwanese businessmen in investing in Taiwan are safeguarded by the agreement, and are not affected. The rights and interests of Taiwanese businessmen in investing in Taiwan are safeguarded by the agreement, and the stable development of Taiwan's economy is not affected."

Under the Lee Teng-hui administration (before 2000)

It can be seen that as early as 1987, Yun-suan Sun put forward a similar view of no haste, no impatience in an interview with World Magazine. (Sun Yun-suan: Overdependence on Mainland China's Economy Will Create a Crisis)

In the 1990s, then President Lee Teng-hui and then Chief Executive Hao Pao-cun issued three major ultimatums in response to Formosa Plastics' large-scale investment in the Haicang Project in mainland China. If Formosa Plastics signed an agreement with China on the Haicang Plan, the government would stop the trading of Formosa Plastics' stocks, order the relevant banks to freeze the funds of Formosa Plastics Group, and restrict the departure of Formosa Plastics Group's top executives from the country, among other three major prohibitions. Formosa Plastics enterprises in order to survive, only to bear the pain to give up investment.

Prior to 2000 A.D., in addition to the idea of "no haste, no impatience" for investment in the mainland, there was also the "bold westward advancement" advocated by Hsu Hsin-liang, who was once the chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and the "strong westward advancement" of the DPP, which came out of debates; the bold westward advancement school believed that Taiwanese businessmen, by moving westward on a large scale, would be able to exert a considerable amount of influence on the mainland, and thus become a guarantee of security for Taiwan, while the no haste, no impatience school believed that relying on the labor force and the market of the mainland would hinder the autonomy and the multiple security of Taiwan, and that Taiwanese businessmen, on the contrary, would easily become the spokespersons for the Communist Party of China (CPC) in Taiwan, and that over-expansion in the westward direction would make the spokespersons too strong in terms of politics and economics and would result in asymmetric influences.

At the end of 1994, the renminbi was devalued by 45%, mainland China attracted a large number of investments from various countries, and the funds of East Asian countries began to bleed out.

On August 14, 1996, Lee Teng-hui in the National Assembly in response to the National People's Congress delegates to the State of the nation's proposal, pointed out that "mainland China as the hinterland of the construction of the Asia-Pacific operation center of the argument must be reviewed." On September 14 of the same year, Lee Teng-hui put forward the idea of "no haste, no impatience", and then clearly defined: "high-tech, more than 50 million U.S. dollars, infrastructure" three kinds of investment should be "no haste, no impatience", so that Taiwan will not lose its R & D, and will not lose its R & D. "to avoid the loss of Taiwan's R&D advantage and excessive blood loss of capital. Upon publication of this policy, it was questioned by the industrial and commercial sectors and triggered a debate on "how to strike a balance between national and social security and corporate interests."

During his tenure as chief executive, Mr. Hsiao followed Lee Teng-hui's direction of no haste, no impatience as the main axis of cross-strait policy.

Under the Chen Shui-bian Administration (2000-2008)

In 2000, after Chen Shui-bian was elected president, the world economic downturn coincided with the intensification of voices from the industrial sector calling for a relaxation of the "no haste, no impatience" policy, and Chen Shui-bian changed the "no haste, no impatience" policy to "active openness, effective management. On January 1, 2006, in his New Year's Day speech, Chen Shui-bian changed the propaganda from "active openness and effective management" to "active management and effective openness".

Opposition to the impatient former DPP non-district legislator Lin Toushui said: Bian as "anti-western" savior, in fact, is very strange, because until 2005 before Bian is the western faction, he came to power, announced the opening of the small three links, amended the cross-strait relations between the people's regulations, narrowing the restrictions on the Chinese people to come to Taiwan, easing the restrictions on investment in mainland China, the end of 2004, formally passed the "positive opening up" program ......However, his plan was hampered by cross-strait tensions and the delay in opening up the Three Direct Links, which was criticized by the Kuomintang as "locking up the country", thus creating a stereotype of anti-Three Direct Links and anti-cross-strait exchanges among the public, and was finally taken by the losers of the M-shape society as the savior of economic nationalism. However, he also said that the westward movement will indeed make the distribution of income in Taiwan more uneven, but the problem cannot be solved without haste and impatience.