Since the protests in Hong Kong over an extradition bill and Beijing’s imposition of sweeping national security legislation, there has been speculation about which city can replace it as a financial hub in the region or globally.
Hong Kong ranked sixth in the latest Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) for competitiveness as a financial center, falling three notches from the previous survey, indicating its clouded future.
The index, which is compiled by the London-based consultancy Z/Yen Group and the Shenzhen-based think tank the China Development Institute, is released twice per year to chart the status of the world’s leading financial centers in terms of business environment, human capital, infrastructure, financial sector development and reputation.
The 27th edition was released in March and provided evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 108 major financial centers, with New York, London and Tokyo remaining the world’s top three, with complete freedom of capital movement and sound financial infrastructure, followed by Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong.
However, it seems that the social unrest and political confrontations over the past two years have reduced the stability and attractiveness of Hong Kong as a financial hub.
Taipei’s ranking fell from 34th in September last year to 75th in the latest poll, with the city’s evaluations for financial systems and human capital relatively unsatisfactory compared with other centers.
Taiwan’s financial policies are fairly conservative, as the nation aims to safeguard its currency’s exchange rate stability and has more regulations on capital flow. In addition, the mindset of Taiwan’s financial authorities is mainly to prevent fraud and curb money laundering, resulting in insufficient financial innovation. In addition, the brain drain from the nation has increased so much that it has become a national security risk.
As a result, Taipei’s GFCI ranking has slid from 21st in September 2016, to 26th and 27th in 2017, 30th and 32nd in 2018, and 34th in both of last year’s surveys. While other centers in the region have advanced in the rankings, Taipei has continued to slide and is now not only well behind the three other Asian Tigers — Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea — but also China’s Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Chengdu, as well as Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok.
Taipei’s poor showing has poured cold water on any discussion of replacing Hong Kong as Asia’s financial center, but that does not mean the nation has no ambition to find a niche in the fast-changing global finance landscape and become a hub with its own characteristics.
Taipei’s chances of rising again in the rankings are not gone, but it needs to consider how Taiwan envisions itself and how it can improve its financial infrastructure, talent cultivation and compliance with international laws. How can Taiwan leverage its democracy, healthcare, culture and social structure when there is a potential exodus of financial professionals from Hong Kong?
However, becoming a niche financial center is not easy. Over the past two or three decades, the government has on numerous occasions proposed plans to make Taiwan an “Asia-Pacific financial center,” an “Asia-Pacific fundraising and asset management center” or a “yuan-related wealth management center.”
Since last year, the Financial Supervisory Commission has been working on deregulating offshore banking units and allowing more new products in financial institutions’ wealth management portfolios.
However, the biggest difficulty lies in the world’s perception of Taiwan’s business environment — whether it is stable or risky. Influencing the international perception of the nation and its financial status is neither simple, nor can it be achieved through slogans.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
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
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS