In terms of cross-strait economic and trade issues, those who advocate "going west" -- ?namely, expanding investments in China -- have been portrayed as liberal and wise. On the contrary, legal restrictions and government actions that protect the public interest, and the assets and safety of the Taiwanese people, have been portrayed as conservative and stubborn. Such naivety puts Taiwan's economic achievements at the mercy of development based on populist ideology.
Many readers will recall the sensation caused by fruit exports to China. In July, Beijing invited both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Farmers' Association of Taiwan Province (台灣省農會) to discuss this. Anyone of good sense could tell that this was a politically motivated move. Thanks to certain political parties, however, exporting fruit to China was publicized as the best way of boosting the income of local farmers.
As President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) repeatedly warned, food quarantine and safety standards are much lower in China. And, even though Taiwanese fruits were granted tariff-free status, they would have to compete with cheap products from Southeastern Asia. Once the novelty of fruits from Taiwan wore off, profit margins would be squeezed and our farmers would have no choice but to cut prices, the the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government warned.
The Council of Agriculture repeatedly stressed that issues involving public rights should be handled by the government or authorized agencies so that a trade agreement could be reached that would protect farmers' rights. However, politicians and media with with their own agendas criticized the DPP government, saying that they were "sacrificing the interests of disadvantaged groups" for the sake of ideology.
Within six months, the pro-unification media were forced to eat their words and to admit that Taiwanese fruit fever in China had cooled substantially. Stands selling Taiwanese fruits in stores in Beijing were half the size they had been, and business was down by more than 50 percent.
Apart from the novelty having worn off, this was also the result of much fruit from Guangdong and Hainan Provinces having been labelled as being from Taiwan. Thus, the market was flooded with low-quality counterfeits. Even some wax apples exported from Thailand to China were labelled as coming from Taiwan. The Chinese government's failure to crack down on counterfeits and a lack of a classification system contributed to Taiwanese farmers being unable to secure a steady market.
Taiwanese farmers exporting fruits to China continue to face significant hurdles and the reputation of Taiwanese fruits has been damaged even before the farmers have begun to profit. In hindsight, the government's fears have been realized.
In light of these developments, the executive should not be fooled into acceding to the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce's (工商協進會) request that it cancel the 40 percent cap on China-bound investment by Taiwanese companies (Taiwanese businesses are banned from investing over 40 percent of their net value in China). Rather, it should carefully consider the risks. For example, if the investment ceiling is canceled, how will the flood of business relocation affect Taiwan's unemployment rate? And how will the capital outflow to China further marginalize Taiwan?
In recognition of the complex relationship created by investments in China, the government needs to have firm policies. The media should also view this from the perspective of public interest and should honestly uncover the failure of many Taiwanese businesses in China, so as not to lead the nation to its ruin.
Chiu Li-li is a Tainan City councilor.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented