Is Taiwan the only nation that has to bribe its people to visit their own country? The seemingly endless announcements of travel subsidies — for government workers, tour groups, people of certain ages or travel to areas affected by natural disasters — seemingly proves this to be true.
Tourism promotions targeting international travelers are normal for most nations, but it is rare to hear about similar domestic travel subsidy offers in other countries.
According to Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), a winter travel subsidy program that ran from November last year to the end of January and cost NT$1.4 billion (US$45.49 million) earned the hotel industry NT$10 billion in revenue, which led the Tourism Bureau to announce that it is considering a similar program from next month through June.
However, the subsidy offers do not make everyone happy. Almost every time a program is announced, there are complaints from travel agents, local governments and others about the size of the subsidies, the scope and duration of the offers, and so on.
Even civil servants complain about one of the longest-running schemes, the Taiwan Citizen Travel Card, introduced in 2003, which gives an estimated 500,000 government workers a holiday allowance of about NT$16,000 per year to spend on domestic travel.
Frequent complaints revolve around restrictions on card use — such as a decision in December 2016 requiring at least half the money to be spent on group tours — and the paperwork involved, or that they would prefer to just receive an annual cash bonus.
The latest complaints about the spring subsidy program came from the travel industry itself, which said that contrary to the bureau’s assertion that spring is a low season, April to June is a busy period domestically, and it is already difficult to charter tour buses and book hotel rooms.
Some travel agents even said that the government should stop subsidizing domestic travelers.
The complaints highlight a recurring problem with the government and the bureau’s proposals: They often take a scattergun approach, lack strong logistical support and fail to take into account the needs or suggestions of the groups involved.
For example, the government has domestically and internationally been promoting the nation’s Aboriginal communities and culture, as well as ecotourism, but encouraging more people to visit remote, ecologically sensitive areas that lack the infrastructure to support large groups of visitors can cause more harm than good.
Many Aboriginal communities have also been upset by the promotion of traditional ceremonies and events that are key parts of their heritage, not photography opportunities for outsiders who do not respect their traditions.
Funds for subsidy programs should be spent on improving tourism infrastructure, which would provide long-term benefits, Travel Quality Assurance Association public relations manager Frank Lee (李謙宏) said earlier this week.
He equated the travel subsidies to narcotics that provide a quick buzz, before the user returns to reality, intimating that without the buzz, Taiwanese would be reluctant to travel domestically.
That might sound a bit harsh, but it is not the first time, and probably will not be the last, that a travel industry insider suggests that the government pay serious attention to — and money on — improving tourism infrastructure, rather than short-term programs.
Everyone loves a good deal, but bargain hunting is not the way to build a sustainable product.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95