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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past