At present, Taiwan's China-bound investment accounts for 71.05 percent of its total foreign investment. This is five times more than the amount invested in the British Virgin Islands, which is the second-largest recipient at 14.9 percent, and 19 times more than that invested in the US, which at 3.7 percent ranks third among destinations for Taiwanese foreign investment. Clearly, Taiwan's outbound foreign investment is seriously tipped in China's favor.
Once China's economy begins to falter, Taiwanese businesspeople's lack of understanding of the need to hedge their investments means that they will find it difficult to cope. If Taiwanese companies in China begin to fall apart at the seams, Taiwan's economy will also go down the tubes.
Although Japanese investments in China have increased in recent years, China only received 12.96 percent of Japan's total foreign investment in 2004, making it the fourth-largest recipient. Japanese foreign investment is being equally spread over different regions of the world. Clearly, Japanese companies have hedged their positions well, and unless there is an economic crisis of global scale, Japan's economy will not suffer because of political, economic or social disturbances in a few regions.
Japanese businesspeople clearly have a better understanding of the need to hedge their investments than their Taiwanese counterparts and therefore avoid putting all their eggs in one basket.
Many believe that since China has the largest population in the world, it is also the world's biggest market. However, a big population does not necessarily amount to strong consumption power. China's population accounts for 20.25 percent of the world's population, but its GDP only accounts for 4.35 percent of the world's GDP. It trails far behind the 25-nation EU, whose collective population accounts for 7.08 percent of world's population while its GDP accounts for 30.14 percent of global GDP. China is thus not one of the largest markets in the world.
This data proves two things: a large population does not translate into a large market, and the biggest markets in the world are the EU, the US and Japan, not China.
If Taiwanese businesspeople do not realize this simple fact, they will not be able to invest wisely.
Many also believe that Taiwan only stands to benefit from the opening up of direct transport links with China. However, according to a report released by the Mainland Affairs Council in 2003, the normalization of cross-strait transportation links would lead to an increase of China-bound investment by NT$280 billion (US$9 billion). The report also said that the number of China-bound tourists would increase by 2 million people, who would spend NT$60 billion, for a total of NT$340 billion.
If direct transport links are established, Taiwan could save NT$13.3 billion on air freight and NT$800 million in freight transport, for a total of NT$14.1 billion. This means that if cross-strait links are established, Taiwan will lose NT$326 billion a year.
Furthermore, a survey entitled "Taiwanese Businessmen on China-bound Investment" issued by the Chinese National Federation of Industries last year said that if direct transportation links are normalized, only 27.4 percent of Taiwanese companies would be willing to increase their investments in Taiwan, while 52.3 percent said they would increase their investments in China.
It seems that rather than a panacea for Taiwan's economy, the normalization of direct cross-strait transportation would be a poison pill.
Su Lung-chi is an assistant to the Taiwan Solidarity Union legislative caucus.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing