On Tuesday, representatives of Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) signed agreements that will expand the charter passenger flights between the two sides, permit airlines to ply a more direct route to save fuel and time, make cross-strait cargo flights possible and allow for direct shipping links, in addition to agreements on postal services and food safety issues.
Advocates of the normalization of cross-strait economic ties said the agreements reflected popular demand and would boost bilateral trade. But as soon as investors turned their attention to reality, they found they faced the same old problems: slowing exports, rising unemployment, weakening consumption and stagnant salaries.
The performance of the stock market last week speaks for itself: Three consecutive sessions of decline in the local stock market following the signing of the agreements. This offered some important lessons to investors.
First, it will be a while before the agreements make a meaningful contribution to shareholder returns. The agreements will likely have a long-term impact on Taiwan’s economy, but they cannot revive it instantaneously.
Exports last month posted their largest decline in almost seven years, dropping 8.3 percent from a year earlier and following a decline of 1.6 percent in the previous month. This was just one of the latest indicators that Taiwan’s growth momentum is weakening fast.
Second, the benefits of the cross-strait agreements are not likely to offset the negative impact of the global economic slowdown. The equity performance on Wall Street and regional markets will remain a dominant factor on the Taiwanese stock market.
Market optimism over improved economic ties with China will be short-lived, especially after the latest exports figures showed that shipments to China, Taiwan’s largest export market, dropped 19.9 percent last month year-on-year, the biggest decline since February 2005, when it plummeted 20.7 percent.
The optimism will also be undercut by the likeliness of global economic recession. Last week, disappointing US employment and corporate earnings reports, along with a slew of weak economic data from Japan and the EU zone, indicated that advanced countries could be moving into recession next year. That didn’t spell good news for export-dependent Taiwan.
Third, before the meeting, the market had expectations for fast improvements in cross-strait relations, but the clashes between protesters and police last week signaled that improving cross-strait relations could be undermined by sovereignty considerations.
Just because the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has the legislative and administrative power to implement any policy it likes doesn’t mean the ruling party can choose not to take into account the views of the opposition, or refuse to conduct negotiations with openness and transparency.
Any cross-strait policy changes will rely on a consensus among Taiwanese. While the SEF and ARATS seem ready to meet every six months to discuss economic and financial issues, it is not certain that the planned talks will proceed as smoothly as expected if protests, and perhaps violence, intensify.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS