Have you ever counted how many of your personal belongings were made in China? If you have not, try doing so. You might be surprised by how much you are unknowingly paying Chinese companies.
The idea of boycotting Chinese products is bound to spark controversy. As China buys about 40 percent of Taiwan’s exports, even politicians who are most vocal about Taiwanese sovereignty might have reservations about a boycott, which would surely provoke a retaliation from Beijing if implemented at a national level.
However, that does not mean that Taiwanese should ditch the idea altogether or that it is not feasible — at least not on a personal level.
Before people start asking why they should boycott or, at the very least, avoid using Chinese products, they should ask: “Why not?”
Is there any sensible reason for Taiwanese to buy everything from China?
The desire of companies worldwide to cut costs and maximize profits has led to today’s global trade setting, in which nearly everything is made in China.
This has been going on for a while, so much so that China by 2013 had accumulated so much wealth from its “excess production” that it directed those resources to gaining hegemony over other nations in the shape of its international infrastructure project known as the Belt and Road Initiative.
China grants generous loans to economically weak countries that participate in the initiative, only to turn on them and demand a share of their natural wealth or infrastructure when they fail to repay their debt. The loot China has seized through the extortionist practice includes ports, natural resources and even political influence.
US companies that have followed US President Donald Trump’s “America first” policy by moving their production lines back to the US know that it is not wise to source all their raw materials and components from China.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general Duncan Lewis has warned about the “insidious threat” Beijing poses to Australian universities and media with its attempts to shape public opinion and trumpet its views on global issues. Australians might want to start paying attention to how much Chinese products they are buying.
Taiwanese who support the nation’s right to self-determination and oppose unification with China should definitely boycott Chinese products whenever possible. Decrying Beijing’s bullying of Taiwan while paying for Chinese goods on a daily basis is pure hypocrisy. Every dollar paid to China is making it richer — and bolder in its bullying of other nations in the region.
The Democratic Progressive Party administration is faced with the inconvenient truth that its New Southbound Policy — in which trade plays a significant role — cannot achieve its full potential without a boycott of Chinese products.
Take clothing, for example. Some well-known brands have chosen third countries over China to build their production bases. Sweden’s H&M is one of them: It opened production lines in India and Bangladesh, instead of China.
Taiwanese can source practically anything they need from countries other than China — and at reasonable prices. They might also be pleasantly surprised that many of the products are made in countries targeted by the New Southbound Policy, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.
They might be even more delighted to find that quite a few personal items are still being made in Taiwan and by choosing them over Chinese products, they would subtly but surely nurture local industries.
In international politics, greater economic power means greater political clout. China needs to be stripped of its title of being the world’s factory and then maybe it could start to learn some humility.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS