China and Hong Kong signed a Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) on June 30 last year. They also signed six annexes to the CEPA on Sept. 29, finalizing the CEPA's framework and details. The agreement went into effect on Jan. 1.
The CEPA carries extraordinary significance under the current highly divergent realities of the cross-strait political situation and economic development.
From the perspective of industry, not only should they think about how to seek survival space and a niche in the new cross-strait trade and economic situation, but the ruling and opposition parties, intoxicated as they are with the election race, should also propose policy visions for the major, ongoing cross-strait trade and economic issues.
The CEPA covers three major areas: trade in goods, trade in services and trade and investment facilitation.
In the manufacturing industry, Hong Kong primarily produces labor-intensive products such as time pieces, toys, garments and hardware -- vastly different from Taiwan's emphasis on electrical devices, mechanical appliances and optical instruments. The impact is therefore small. Even in industries that overlap with Hong Kong's prime types of industry, Taiwanese businesses have long developed many products inside China and that development is maturing. These products will not be affected as the CEPA takes effect.
Manufacturing accounts for only around 5 percent of Hong Kong's economy. The service industry makes up the mainstay, accounting for 90 percent of GDP. In the "Trade in Services" section of the CEPA, China is opening up more than 60 service industries to Hong Kong businesses this year.
According to the agreement on China's WTO entry, these industries will not be fully opened up [to the rest of the world] until four or five years later. These relaxations cover controls on investment access and stock ownership arrangements. Obviously, the CEPA will add wings to Hong Kong's service industry as it goes into effect by allowing Hong Kong businesses to enter the China market two or three years earlier than the rest of the world.
The main battlefield, therefore, is in the service industry.
For Taiwanese businesses, the CEPA will increase the difficulty of their future competition with Hong Kong businesses in service industries such as legal services, medical services, banking and insurance, given the current cross-strait trade and economic framework. Hong Kong's most competitive industry also happens to be the service industry. Given that Hong Kong businesses have the same language and cultural advantages as their Taiwanese counterparts in the competition, Taiwanese businesses will predictably lose massive business opportunities in China's market. On the other hand, Taiwan's manufacturing industry accounted for 30.54 percent of GDP last year, down from 46.27 percent in 1985.
The service industry accounted for 67.67 percent last year, up from 47.94 percent in 1985. The figure is rising every year. This means that Taiwan is entering a standard "service-oriented" mode of economic development after the migration of manufacturing industries.
However, Taiwan will not accept an arrangement for closer trade and economic relations under the "one country, two systems" premise. How then to safeguard and increase the competitiveness of the service industry after the CEPA takes effect?
I believe new coordinates for Taiwan in the new cross-strait trade and economic situation can be found in these two points.
One, in terms of industrial operations, Hong Kong is a new investment destination to be considered. Banks, for example, can consider strategic alliances with Hong Kong banks by way of indirect stock holdings, or they can consider directly acquiring Hong Kong banks.
In the long run, from the perspective of the transparency of information, a cross-strait financial supervision agreement will be necessary. But there is no hope of signing such an agreement, because the cross-strait political deadlock is not yet resolved. Therefore, we should utilize Hong Kong's financial supervision mechanism and allow the Hong Kong branches of Taiwanese banks to set up branches in China.
By using Hong Kong's advantage under the CEPA, Taiwan's financial institutions can benefit from the CEPA too.
Other service industries should also think about whether they need to enter the China market via Hong Kong after the CEPA takes effect.
Two, from the perspective of separating politics from trade and economic issues, Taiwan cannot accept a CEPA model under "one country, two systems."
Vincent Siew (
It is true that the cross-strait political situation and economic and industrial development have diverged seriously. For example, when it comes to the literal meanings of "arrangement" and "agreement," some contend that "arrangement" is a product of "one country, two systems" and that "agreement" should be used on grounds of equality and dignity.
I have no intention of refuting this idea, but from the perspective of industrial development, negotiations on the cross-strait division of labor and trade-economic cooperation should be treated as more important than formal nomenclature.
It is worth thinking twice about whether seeking a correct name for everything will hinder economic development and business opportunities.
Hong Chi-chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Francis Huang
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS