The unexpected announcement by Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) last Tuesday that state-owned refinery CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC, 台灣中油) would raise gasoline and other fuel prices the following day triggered harsh criticism from skeptics.
Liu has faced criticism over his handling of the matter and the potential damage this could have on the new government’s administrative credibility. However, he has defended the policy as a way of preventing stockpiling and maintaining public safety.
To mitigate growing inflation concerns and guard against a drop in consumer spending, Liu said consumers would only have to absorb 60 percent of the increases, with the government and CPC accounting for the rest in equal parts.
The problem is simple: How long can the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government afford to shield consumers with such subsidies without draining the national coffers? If the Democratic Progressive Party government deserved criticism for price controls — a practice that hurt the state oil company at the expense of all taxpayers — then it is difficult to see how the KMT’s measures are any different. The take home message is that both parties have little sympathy for the user-pays principle.
The government should reconsider the benefits that would flow from a truly competitive domestic fuel market.
Such a market appears more important by the day, given that the privately owned Formosa Petrochemical Corp (FPC, 台塑石化) said that it would raise gasoline and diesel prices two days after the government’s announcement to match those of its rival.
Despite differences in financial structure and operations, CPC and FPC have allegedly colluded in a market that has become a duopoly since the withdrawal of ExxonMobil Corp from Taiwan in 2003.
FPC’s latest price hikes remind us that the two refiners are almost certainly engaging in a protracted game of price-fixing, and this will continue indefinitely if there is no reform.
One reason CPC can absorb 20 percent of the price increases is because the government agreed to lower the commodity tax on gasoline and diesel — by 19 percent and 35 percent respectively — for a period of six months to compensate the state refiner so that it could pass on lower increases to consumers.
What makes informed consumers really angry is that the tax cut also applies to the profitable FPC, which already enjoys a handsome profit from fuel exports, at a time when the national coffers are estimated to be suffering losses of NT$9.6 billion (US$315.7 million) in tax revenue for this six-month period.
Higher domestic gasoline and diesel prices are inevitable at this time, and the government must rely on tax cuts and other subsidies to cushion inflationary pressures in the short term.
But the government’s role is different to that of private citizens and companies. Its goal is to maintain balanced development in the allocation of resources, wealth distribution and economic growth over the long term rather than getting bogged down in daily price adjustments.
Creating a more competitive market is vital at times of privation, and requires the removal of barriers to petroleum imports, including high tariffs, as well as unpredictable — even nonsensical — government intervention.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS