Would voters in Taiwan vote the same way today as they did on March 22? Some, especially in the business sector, are still hopeful. Others are “still not clear.” But already, surely, there are a considerable number of people who would vote differently.
In the news one sees government plans that were expected, many of which are not yet agreed to by China, and others that are not clear. Many more are about what is wrong for Taiwan or what should be done, but that has not had an impact on what the government does. And little political opposition is heard.
In the run-up to the legislative and the presidential elections, Taiwan’s economy was touted as being in poor health and deteriorating, although it was not as bad as it was made out to be. The economy has declined since the new government took over, but much of that was based on global economic changes and not so much government policies.
Despite the rather large number of people concerned about having a pro-China government, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) continues to move in that direction. In May the government approved reforms allowing greater investments by Taiwanese financial firms in China. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is working on changes in cross-strait trade and economic ties, easing the cap on China-bound investment. That is the first step. Then the government will list some restrictions that prevent companies in certain sectors, such as high-end semiconductors and liquid-crystal displays, from investing in China before allowing Chinese companies to invest in Taiwan.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said Taiwan should be more open and relax its rules on Chinese investment by Taiwanese chipmakers. But Taiwanese semiconductor companies in China have reported losses. They say the market is not as big as they hoped, the Chinese government has abolished several tax benefits for Taiwanese businesspeople and that labor costs are now higher than in Thailand.
More important, however, is the extent to which it will be acceptable to open Taiwan’s expertise on the semiconductor industry to China. Taiwan is a world leader in the industry, with a large number of expert employees. It surpasses China now, but moving these experts and their knowledge across the Taiwan Strait could quickly change that. There is also the interest of the US in controlling exports to specific countries, including China.
At the same time, the Straits Exchange Foundation chairman is expected to pursue “common party” policy with China, though the timing is not clear. Should it be discussed, the purpose would be to create a free-trade agreement, liberalize cross-strait trade and develop an economic coordination system that will establish economic integration and help protect Taiwanese business interests in China. The latter would be similar to that of Beijing and Hong Kong, and could cause problems within Taiwan.
It seems that every day there are reports of Ma or other government leaders promising that more changes will be made toward China, mainly economically but also politically. Many of these ideas are being voiced by those who believe they will gain from the changes, but the government also believes moving closer to China would be best for Taiwan. But there are also reports that moving in that direction may not be best for Taiwan for a variety of reasons. At the same time, economic conditions worldwide are causing countries to tighten their own economic policies, including China and the US.
Under these circumstances, is it wise to move forward and make agreements with China on matters that will be changing continuously?
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS