STATISTICS SHOW THAT Shanghai handled more than 26 million standard containers last year, 20.4 percent more than the year before, to replace Hong Kong as the world's second-largest container port. Measured in terms of cargo throughput, Shanghai, which handled 561 million tonnes of cargo last year, maintained its position as the largest port in the world for the third consecutive year.
This is surprising because Hong Kong is rated No. 1 in terms of economic freedom -- well above Shanghai at No. 126. Ships can travel freely between Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tianjin and other ports. Taiwan's pro-unification academics and media tell us that Hong Kong has the potential to be the economic center for all of greater China and the transport hub for all of East Asia. Its container throughput should increase every year, and there is no reason why Shanghai's growth should be greater than Hong Kong's.
Or consider the port of Busan in South Korea. In 2001, Busan surpassed Kaohsiung to become the third-largest container port in the world. At that time, Shanghai was the fifth-largest port. In 2003, Shanghai overtook Busan. This is also surprising because Busan ranks 41st in terms of economic freedom, making it significantly more free than Shanghai. Ships can travel freely from Busan to major ports like Shanghai, Tokyo, Osaka, Dalian and Tianjin. Busan should have been able to develop into a transport hub and a logistics center, yet it has been overtaken by Shanghai. Are officials in Busan and Hong Kong to blame for their lack of competitiveness?
Shanghai's performance should be a warning to the pan-blue camp and the pro-unification media. They should stop using ideological arguments to explain why Kaohsiung keeps sliding down the list of the world's largest ports and stop blaming others for their own mistakes. Kaohsiung's lack of competitiveness is the unavoidable outcome of Taiwan's industries migrating to China and has little to do with policies or direct routes to other ports.
The main reason for Shanghai's rise as a port is that the industry in Shanghai's hinterland is expanding rapidly. Taiwanese businesspeople are playing an important role in this development. Since 2001, when Taiwan's adopted a policy of "active opening," Shanghai's neighboring cities -- such as Suzhou, Kunshan and Wujiang -- have attracted considerable numbers of companies involved in science and technology, many run by Taiwanese. Last year, China exported US$450 billion in information technology products, accounting for 37.6 percent of its exports. Because Taiwan's industries are moving abroad, there is less cargo to be shipped through Kaohsiung. This trend cannot be helped, and it was inevitable that Shanghai's port would grow larger than those of Kaohsiung, Busan and Hong Kong.
During a recent forum in Kaohsiung, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Pan-blue academics and media are responsible for the decline of Kaohsiung. For years, they have promoted loosening regulations and opening up to China with the result that many of Taiwan's industries have moved to China.
If the government caves in to the demands of the pan-blue camp for looser restrictions and more opening up to China, Taiwanese will suffer the consequences and the Kaohsiung port will inevitably fall off the list of 10 largest ports.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS