Is Taiwan the only nation that has to bribe its people to visit their own country? The seemingly endless announcements of travel subsidies — for government workers, tour groups, people of certain ages or travel to areas affected by natural disasters — seemingly proves this to be true.
Tourism promotions targeting international travelers are normal for most nations, but it is rare to hear about similar domestic travel subsidy offers in other countries.
According to Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), a winter travel subsidy program that ran from November last year to the end of January and cost NT$1.4 billion (US$45.49 million) earned the hotel industry NT$10 billion in revenue, which led the Tourism Bureau to announce that it is considering a similar program from next month through June.
However, the subsidy offers do not make everyone happy. Almost every time a program is announced, there are complaints from travel agents, local governments and others about the size of the subsidies, the scope and duration of the offers, and so on.
Even civil servants complain about one of the longest-running schemes, the Taiwan Citizen Travel Card, introduced in 2003, which gives an estimated 500,000 government workers a holiday allowance of about NT$16,000 per year to spend on domestic travel.
Frequent complaints revolve around restrictions on card use — such as a decision in December 2016 requiring at least half the money to be spent on group tours — and the paperwork involved, or that they would prefer to just receive an annual cash bonus.
The latest complaints about the spring subsidy program came from the travel industry itself, which said that contrary to the bureau’s assertion that spring is a low season, April to June is a busy period domestically, and it is already difficult to charter tour buses and book hotel rooms.
Some travel agents even said that the government should stop subsidizing domestic travelers.
The complaints highlight a recurring problem with the government and the bureau’s proposals: They often take a scattergun approach, lack strong logistical support and fail to take into account the needs or suggestions of the groups involved.
For example, the government has domestically and internationally been promoting the nation’s Aboriginal communities and culture, as well as ecotourism, but encouraging more people to visit remote, ecologically sensitive areas that lack the infrastructure to support large groups of visitors can cause more harm than good.
Many Aboriginal communities have also been upset by the promotion of traditional ceremonies and events that are key parts of their heritage, not photography opportunities for outsiders who do not respect their traditions.
Funds for subsidy programs should be spent on improving tourism infrastructure, which would provide long-term benefits, Travel Quality Assurance Association public relations manager Frank Lee (李謙宏) said earlier this week.
He equated the travel subsidies to narcotics that provide a quick buzz, before the user returns to reality, intimating that without the buzz, Taiwanese would be reluctant to travel domestically.
That might sound a bit harsh, but it is not the first time, and probably will not be the last, that a travel industry insider suggests that the government pay serious attention to — and money on — improving tourism infrastructure, rather than short-term programs.
Everyone loves a good deal, but bargain hunting is not the way to build a sustainable product.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS