The latest foreign trade figures showed the domestic economy’s growth momentum remained weak last month because of challenging external demand conditions. With demand falling for almost all major product categories, the value of total exports plunged 14.8 percent year-on-year to US$23.93 billion, the seventh consecutive annual decline.
Weakness in exports, especially a slowdown in overseas shipments of electronic and optical products, has had policymakers worried about the competitiveness of Taiwanese information technology and communication service providers, as well as the rapid rise of China’s electronic component suppliers.
This is, of course, just another excuse for the government to find fault with the contract manufacturing business model in electronics-related fields so that it can demand that domestic manufacturers adjust to a new economic environment.
In retrospect, the situation is a result of the government’s China policy over the past two to three decades, which encouraged a west-bound exodus by Taiwanese electronics contract manufacturers, while lacking insight into long-term investment in research, innovation and industrial upgrades for sustainable development, a lesson domestic textile manufacturers have learned the hard way.
Contrary to popular belief that information technology is the nation’s primary foreign exchange contributor, textiles have been No. 1 for decades, even though the scale of the domestic textile industry appears to be small.
Indeed, many Taiwanese manufacturers in textile-related businesses relocated en masse to China in the 1990s to take advantage of cheaper labor.
However, some came back to Taiwan a decade later having suffered from fierce price competition in China, and rather than focusing on keeping costs low, they decided to turn to eco-friendly, fashionable and functional fabrics used by global sportswear brands and major clothing retailers.
Therefore, at a time when Taiwanese electronics component makers are facing a growing threat from Beijing-backed component suppliers, local textile makers have moved up the value chain through development of high-end functional fabrics, which feature better elasticity and strength, along with value-added functions, such as temperature control, compression and moisture wicking. Taiwanese manufacturers are now major suppliers of high-end sportswear and functional textile products to global brands such as Adidas, Gap, Lululemon Athletica, Nike and Under Armour.
Investors have rewarded companies that have taken painful steps to upgrade their business models. On the local bourse, the electronics sub-index has dropped 13.34 percent this year, but the textiles sub-index has gained 10.67 percent over the same period, led by Makalot Industrial’s 62.13 percent rise, Toung Loong Textile Manufacturing’s 60.02 percent increase and Eclat Textile’s 50.93 percent advance. Some might argue that this is the choice of Taiwanese companies.
However, the strategy of Taiwanese textile firms to invest in Taiwan, cultivate a complete supply chain and focus on developing functional fabrics and textiles that offer people a better wearing experience has not only differentiated their products, but also prevented them from engaging in price competition with rivals.
Although labor costs and research investment are more expensive in Taiwan, they are worthwhile for domestic manufacturers and for the nation as a whole, as long as local businesses and government officials pay due attention to the threat of economic espionage by China. That is what companies in the textile sector have taught us, as have Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Largan Precision in the technology sector.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS