Five years after it struck, the nation is still feeling the effects of the global economic crisis. The government has come under pressure to do more, but engineering an economic recovery and overhauling industrial infrastructure is difficult.
Early this year the new Cabinet unveiled its plan to establish “free economic pilot zones,” but their impact has been disappointing, and disagreements within the government over how the plan should be implemented have not died down. This led to a rather limited relaxation of current legislation, and several opinion leaders have expressed reservations about the policy.
However, after China started promoting the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone, the government was forced into a bolder relaxation of these restrictions. It this month initiated amendments in seven main areas including promoting the free movement of personnel and commodities, and opening up to the global market.
The government also said that the zone scheme would be extended to extra locations. In addition to the creation of seven free trade ports, it designated an agricultural biotech park in Pingtung County and international healthcare centers within the four international airports.
Although Taiwan is not regarded as a major market by foreign investors, it has many advantages, including manufacturing resources and capabilities.
While the traditional industrial manufacturing base has moved overseas, the nation still has much to offer, including people with considerable production management experience, together with a strong IT and electronics manufacturing industry.
The country is also a good destination for foreign investors in terms of human resources. Salary stagnation means workers are underpaid for their skill level.
Another ace in the nation’s sleeve is its links with China and ASEAN. Hong Kong has its robust services industry, finance and international trade; Taiwan’s advantage resides in its manufacturing industry, along with all the associated derivative industries. Taiwan also boasts a hinterland several times the size of those in Hong Kong and Singapore, and it is much better equipped to serve as a base of innovation based on the Chinese cultural model. We must capitalize on all of these factors.
Economics and the lessons of other countries’ development tell us that small economies neighboring large markets require an environment of economic and trade deregulation to thrive. Such an environment helps their companies operate and facilitates investment activity.
This is the reason foreign investors are willing to pour resources into a country’s industrial development, and why those already there can shine.
In other words, the ease by which companies can enter and exit a market, the relative competitiveness of the tax system, and an infrastructure and regulatory environment beneficial to logistics and the flow of monetary and human resources, including speedy customs clearance, clear and transparent financial regulations and a comprehensive network of communications and air and sea transportation are all crucial factors in ensuring that foreign and local investment capital remains within a country.
If the country plans to develop into a regional processing or logistics hub, it must further relax customs regulations between the pilot zones and the outside world.
If Taiwan is to become a regional center for research and development, the process for assessing patent and intellectual property transactions must be more closely aligned with systems in other countries.
Finally, if the nation is to be the preferred choice for regional headquarters in a range of sectors, it must consider copying the system other countries use to tax inward dividend remittances for foreign investors and for expatriates’ incomes.
In addition, a consensus needs to be formed, and quickly, on what special treatment flows of resources across the Taiwan Strait receive. Any unnecessary restrictions should be relaxed, otherwise the economic zones will be less attractive to both domestic and foreign companies, and the policy will continue to fall short.
Steven Yang is director of research division VI at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath