Despite President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) campaign promises and the policies of his administration, which envision a big cake for everyone to share, the reality is very different. The government’s move to allow Chinese investment in Taiwan is a case in point. In the three months since deregulation, Taiwan has attracted just NT$189 million (US$5.87 million) in Chinese investment.
The government has tried to explain why there has been no rush to invest: Taiwan still has too many restrictions on Chinese capital and Chinese visitors; the global economic climate is not favorable; China is partly to blame. It is now nearly a year and a half since Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regained control of the government, but its core policy — improving cross-strait economic and trade ties — has not produced many benefits.
The government also opened Taiwan to Chinese tourists, but even during the Golden Week holiday following China’s Oct. 1 National Day, only about 1,000 Chinese visitors arrived per day — far short of the predicted 3,000. Japanese and US tourist numbers are also down. As most Chinese tourists come here on low-cost tours and are not big spenders, they generate less revenue than the missing Japanese and Americans.
After all the hype, the opening to Chinese tourists and investment were anti-climactic. Now the government is preparing to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on cross-strait financial supervision and an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. Taiwanese businesspeople are uncertain about the promised benefits of these agreements, while the working class fears they may exacerbate unemployment.
The MOU will allow Chinese banks to open branches in Taiwan. The problem is that China has no private banks — they are all state run. Their branches in Taiwan can therefore be expected to serve a political purpose. If they offer higher interest rates than local banks, they will attract the majority of deposits and can then lend this money to Chinese-invested businesses in Taiwan, allowing them to buy up key resources and take control of the economy.
While the planned MOU is limited to finance, an ECFA would go farther. The Ma administration wants to use an ECFA to connect with ASEAN and avoid marginalization, but this is just wishful thinking. Other ASEAN members may not want Taiwan in their club, and China has not promised to allow Taiwan in.
An ECFA will also make it easier for businesses to move from Taiwan to China, which means less jobs in Taiwan. Taiwan’s market will be open to Chinese agricultural and industrial products and services and China’s low labor costs will make it impossible for Taiwanese firms to compete. The government has promised that imports of Chinese farm produce will be limited and Chinese workers barred, but these measures go against the free-trade spirit of the WTO and an ECFA, casting doubt on their viability. The benefits of an ECFA are far from clear, while the negatives are obvious. It is only natural that Taiwanese workers and some entrepreneurs, especially those in the traditional manufacturing sector, would be anxious.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS