The pro-China media in Taiwan have over the past few days taken up the issue of how Kaohsiung Harbor has slipped in global rankings in terms of the annual container volume handled there. As always, they have blamed the government for this, claiming it to be the result of a failure to allow direct links with China and trying to force the government's hand through pressure from business interests.
Emblazoned on the Jan. 5 edition of a certain newspaper was a headline in especially large font that read "Kaohsiung Harbor warning, lowest container traffic recorded in 14 years."
The story quoted the director of the Kaohsiung Harbor Bureau as saying, "If we are to increase the container volume handled by the harbor, we have to open up the three links between Taiwan and China, in the quickest and most efficient way, to increase the number of operators using the harbor as a transfer hub." The official concluded that "otherwise, Taiwan will become more and more marginalized in terms of handling freight."
There is nothing new in Taiwan about turning the truth on its head to suit one's argument. That said, blaming the slipping global ranking of Kaohsiung Harbor on the lack of direct transport links with China does take us to new levels of stupidity. There is a very simple explanation behind Kaohsiung Port's jump from obscurity to being the second-busiest container port in the world, and that is the huge growth seen in the manufacture of goods -- such as clothing, umbrellas, electrical equipment, kitchen appliances, bicycles, footwear, headwear, steel, toys and plastics, and then computers and computer components -- in the major cities in the nation's south.
Naturally, with worldwide demand for these products, the amount of goods passing through Kaohsiung Harbor grew to the point that by 1993 the annual volume exceeded 4.6 billion twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs, the standard measure of container volume), making it one of the busiest ports in the world.
This situation, however, was only temporary, and in the 1990s, after the nation's industry started moving to China, the number of goods produced by traditional industries declined rapidly, just as South Korean and Chinese output was on the rise. In 2000, the volume of goods coming out of Busan in South Korea exceeded exports from Kaohsiung. Later we saw a rise in the global rankings of Shanghai and Shenzhen as China's productive capacities increased, pushing Busan and Kaohsiung to fifth and sixth place. With the exception of Singapore, which enjoys its strategic location in the Malacca Straits, the ranking of the ports of any given country is related closely to the volume of its exports.
The main culprit behind Kaohsiung Harbor's drop in the rankings is the migration of Taiwanese businesses to China. Direct links with China will do little to increase the supply of goods handled by Kaohsiung, and will even make it easier for Taiwan's manufacturing base to migrate, exacerbating the port's decline.
I do not dismiss out of hand the theory that the instigation of direct links with China will improve Kaohsiung Harbor's status as a transfer hub. However, this can only happen if there is a constant volume of exports, and this means a constant volume of goods manufactured in the port's hinterland.
Economic activity is complex, and to have direct links without "investment in Taiwan first" and "active management," will only accelerate the migration of Taiwanese manufacturing to China's seaboard, where the facilities are inferior to those in Taiwan. With goods produced in the hinterland of Shanghai's Yangshan Deep Water Port, currently under construction, who is going to use Kaohsiung Harbor as a transfer hub?
There is a phrase in Chinese that means "drinking poison to quench your thirst." This is exactly what we will be doing if we open up direct links without being a manufacturing center, and without effective management. This will not only be detrimental to the amount of traffic going through Kaohsiung Harbor, it will be damaging to Taiwan as a whole.
This problem is just one of the many woes Taiwan faces that are the result of the migration of its businesses to China. Please do not be misled by theories that seek to turn the truth on its head. The answer doesn't lie in direct links. The only way to solve these problems is to increase investment and manufacturing in Taiwan, improve our industries and increase our international competitiveness.
Huang Tien-lin is national policy adviser to the president.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS