Ever since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her administration took office, they have had to deal with a multitude of problems. A global economy in disarray, highly uncertain and confrontational regional politics, falling levels of domestic investment, a bottleneck in the transformation of the manufacturing industry, difficulty expanding into international markets and a continued overreliance on China as an export market.
Tsai’s government has been searching for a new way out for the economy. The “new southbound policy” — to pivot export trade toward South and Southeast Asia — and its “five innovative industries policy” to promote creative industries have both been keenly anticipated.
At a recent meeting at the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Premier Lin Chuan (林全) announced that the government would open a series of service centers, one for each of the 18 countries covered by the “new southbound policy,” and instructed the Financial Supervisory Commission to set up a “southbound center” financing platform for Taiwanese businesses in need of capital injections.
Lin also said that governments at all levels would have to divide responsibilities in a specialized manner as the Cabinet sets out a plan for how state machinery would be used to implement the policies, establish key performance indicators and do promotional work.
Although the government has talked up the promotion of four important areas requiring development — economic and trade cooperation, pooling of resources, personnel exchanges and linking up the regions — personnel exchanges seems to be the only feasible one of these four plans.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co chairman Morris Chang (張忠謀) has said that although the government’s “five innovative industries policy” is commendable, “it must not overlook industries — such as the semiconductor industry — that have been promoted by previous administrations.”
If the government focuses purely on the promotion of “new industries,” even if they are successful, they would still be unable to compensate for a decline in traditionally strong industries, Chang said.
In other words, given the hole in the government’s policy, it would be extremely dangerous if it were to give consideration only to new industries without maintaining the development of existing ones.
Innovation is important, but innovative industries can be broadly broken down into two types: disruptive innovation and incremental innovation. The former, despite being a global success story in recent years, is time-consuming and requires high levels of investment, while the success rate is low.
On the other hand, with incremental innovation, although advancement is slight, the accumulated advances build up into significant progress over time. This helps to create a space between the incremental innovator and its competitors, which over time allows the innovator to build up a competitive advantage.
When mulling the “new southbound policy” and the “five innovative industries policy,” perhaps thoughts should be focused on how to best furnish Taiwanese businesses with a competitive advantage, based on the principle of incremental innovation and complemented by disruptive innovation and the integration of new and old industries. This should be the basis for a specific and focused southbound policy.
The government must provide assistance to those companies that already sell their products to ASEAN members to help them increase their competitiveness and expand market share. This would provide a rapid boost to Taiwan’s economy.
Furthermore, through the government’s strategy of opening service centers to deal with each of the 18 countries covered by the policy, existing industries will in the short term be able to increase exports, increase market share and expand exports to countries covered by the “new southbound policy.”
In the medium term, it can use the access created by businesses as a springboard to push forward industries within the new economy.
By following this two-pronged strategy, the government would be able to make a success of its southbound policy, while at the same time establish specific key performance indicators to quantify success and failure.
Sung Wen-lung is vice president of the Chinese Business Incubation Association.
Translated by Edward Jones
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS