The unexpected announcement by Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) last Tuesday that state-owned refinery CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC, 台灣中油) would raise gasoline and other fuel prices the following day triggered harsh criticism from skeptics.
Liu has faced criticism over his handling of the matter and the potential damage this could have on the new government’s administrative credibility. However, he has defended the policy as a way of preventing stockpiling and maintaining public safety.
To mitigate growing inflation concerns and guard against a drop in consumer spending, Liu said consumers would only have to absorb 60 percent of the increases, with the government and CPC accounting for the rest in equal parts.
The problem is simple: How long can the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government afford to shield consumers with such subsidies without draining the national coffers? If the Democratic Progressive Party government deserved criticism for price controls — a practice that hurt the state oil company at the expense of all taxpayers — then it is difficult to see how the KMT’s measures are any different. The take home message is that both parties have little sympathy for the user-pays principle.
The government should reconsider the benefits that would flow from a truly competitive domestic fuel market.
Such a market appears more important by the day, given that the privately owned Formosa Petrochemical Corp (FPC, 台塑石化) said that it would raise gasoline and diesel prices two days after the government’s announcement to match those of its rival.
Despite differences in financial structure and operations, CPC and FPC have allegedly colluded in a market that has become a duopoly since the withdrawal of ExxonMobil Corp from Taiwan in 2003.
FPC’s latest price hikes remind us that the two refiners are almost certainly engaging in a protracted game of price-fixing, and this will continue indefinitely if there is no reform.
One reason CPC can absorb 20 percent of the price increases is because the government agreed to lower the commodity tax on gasoline and diesel — by 19 percent and 35 percent respectively — for a period of six months to compensate the state refiner so that it could pass on lower increases to consumers.
What makes informed consumers really angry is that the tax cut also applies to the profitable FPC, which already enjoys a handsome profit from fuel exports, at a time when the national coffers are estimated to be suffering losses of NT$9.6 billion (US$315.7 million) in tax revenue for this six-month period.
Higher domestic gasoline and diesel prices are inevitable at this time, and the government must rely on tax cuts and other subsidies to cushion inflationary pressures in the short term.
But the government’s role is different to that of private citizens and companies. Its goal is to maintain balanced development in the allocation of resources, wealth distribution and economic growth over the long term rather than getting bogged down in daily price adjustments.
Creating a more competitive market is vital at times of privation, and requires the removal of barriers to petroleum imports, including high tariffs, as well as unpredictable — even nonsensical — government intervention.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
The greatest pressure Taiwan has faced in negotiations stems from its continuously growing trade surplus with the US. Taiwan’s trade surplus with the US reached an unprecedented high last year, surging by 54.6 percent from the previous year and placing it among the top six countries with which the US has a trade deficit. The figures became Washington’s primary reason for adopting its firm stance and demanding substantial concessions from Taipei, which put Taiwan at somewhat of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Taiwan’s most crucial bargaining chip is undoubtedly its key position in the global semiconductor supply chain, which led
RSS