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
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS