The Cabinet’s announcement on Thursday that it would raise the ceiling of China-bound investment by Taiwanese companies next month came as no surprise. Increasing investment in China — a proposal that has been the subject of heated debate for years — will help the administration realize its campaign promises.
The Cabinet has said that companies will be allowed to invest 60 percent of their net worth in China, up from ceilings of 20 percent to 40 percent depending on a business’ paid-in capital.
The change will also exempt companies with operational headquarters in Taiwan and subsidiaries of multinational companies from any restrictions on how much they can invest in China.
The idea of easing the investment caps was floated repeatedly by pan-blue lawmakers during the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) eight-year administration. Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party favored relaxing restrictions, while the DPP government said it would need to draw up a complete set of measures before implementing such a change. The Taiwan Solidarity Union firmly opposed the idea, arguing that changing the investment ceilings would aggravate unemployment, hollow out the nation’s industries and increase capital outflow to China.
Now that the KMT enjoys complete control of both the Executive Yuan and the legislature, there are no real obstacles to this deregulation and other initiatives to relax regulations governing cross-strait economic links.
What remains unclear is whether the administration has thought through these changes and prepared effective measures to curb a potential outflow of capital. The government has also failed to make clear whether it has reached any deal with China to guarantee the interests of shareholders and investors in the case of an emergency situation.
The Cabinet’s quick move to relax the investment ceiling without showing any evidence that it is covering all the bases would seem to indicate that the decision-making process has been too rushed. For the sake of protecting our industries, however, the government cannot afford to be careless just to serve its political interests.
The idea that exempting companies with headquarters in Taiwan will encourage more businesses to set up their bases here or list their stocks on the local bourse does not take into account the pivotal factor for any company making such a decision: the general investment environment. Without a sound investment environment at home — which involves factors such as taxation, red tape, access to manpower and infrastructure — relaxing the restrictions on cross-strait investment is only likely to channel more funds out of the country.
What the government fails to recognize is that China’s investment environment is becoming riskier because of higher inflation and the rising cost of labor. The Cabinet’s expectations for the economic benefits of this deregulation should factor in these challenges for Taiwanese firms.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs hoped last week to deflect the criticism that this change could increase capital outflow to China, saying that it would speed up the process to allow Chinese capital into Taiwan.
But the Cabinet needs to be cautious on this front, too. Before letting Chinese investors enter the real estate and securities markets, it must address how to avoid short-term speculation by Chinese investors that could cause a bubble in the market.
Either way, the government’s announcements will not boost the morale of stock investors, who have watched the TAIEX fall by 24.85 percent since May.
What the market needs most right now is measures to contain imported inflation and boost domestic investment and consumer spending.
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
Deflation in China is persisting, raising growing concerns domestically and internationally. Beijing’s stimulus policies introduced in September last year have largely been short-lived in financial markets and negligible in the real economy. Recent data showing disproportionately low bank loan growth relative to the expansion of the money supply suggest the limited effectiveness of the measures. Many have urged the government to take more decisive action, particularly through fiscal expansion, to avoid a deep deflationary spiral akin to Japan’s experience in the early 1990s. While Beijing’s policy choices remain uncertain, questions abound about the possible endgame for the Chinese economy if no decisive
RSS