China and Hong Kong signed a Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) on June 30 last year. They also signed six annexes to the CEPA on Sept. 29, finalizing the CEPA's framework and details. The agreement went into effect on Jan. 1.
The CEPA carries extraordinary significance under the current highly divergent realities of the cross-strait political situation and economic development.
From the perspective of industry, not only should they think about how to seek survival space and a niche in the new cross-strait trade and economic situation, but the ruling and opposition parties, intoxicated as they are with the election race, should also propose policy visions for the major, ongoing cross-strait trade and economic issues.
The CEPA covers three major areas: trade in goods, trade in services and trade and investment facilitation.
In the manufacturing industry, Hong Kong primarily produces labor-intensive products such as time pieces, toys, garments and hardware -- vastly different from Taiwan's emphasis on electrical devices, mechanical appliances and optical instruments. The impact is therefore small. Even in industries that overlap with Hong Kong's prime types of industry, Taiwanese businesses have long developed many products inside China and that development is maturing. These products will not be affected as the CEPA takes effect.
Manufacturing accounts for only around 5 percent of Hong Kong's economy. The service industry makes up the mainstay, accounting for 90 percent of GDP. In the "Trade in Services" section of the CEPA, China is opening up more than 60 service industries to Hong Kong businesses this year.
According to the agreement on China's WTO entry, these industries will not be fully opened up [to the rest of the world] until four or five years later. These relaxations cover controls on investment access and stock ownership arrangements. Obviously, the CEPA will add wings to Hong Kong's service industry as it goes into effect by allowing Hong Kong businesses to enter the China market two or three years earlier than the rest of the world.
The main battlefield, therefore, is in the service industry.
For Taiwanese businesses, the CEPA will increase the difficulty of their future competition with Hong Kong businesses in service industries such as legal services, medical services, banking and insurance, given the current cross-strait trade and economic framework. Hong Kong's most competitive industry also happens to be the service industry. Given that Hong Kong businesses have the same language and cultural advantages as their Taiwanese counterparts in the competition, Taiwanese businesses will predictably lose massive business opportunities in China's market. On the other hand, Taiwan's manufacturing industry accounted for 30.54 percent of GDP last year, down from 46.27 percent in 1985.
The service industry accounted for 67.67 percent last year, up from 47.94 percent in 1985. The figure is rising every year. This means that Taiwan is entering a standard "service-oriented" mode of economic development after the migration of manufacturing industries.
However, Taiwan will not accept an arrangement for closer trade and economic relations under the "one country, two systems" premise. How then to safeguard and increase the competitiveness of the service industry after the CEPA takes effect?
I believe new coordinates for Taiwan in the new cross-strait trade and economic situation can be found in these two points.
One, in terms of industrial operations, Hong Kong is a new investment destination to be considered. Banks, for example, can consider strategic alliances with Hong Kong banks by way of indirect stock holdings, or they can consider directly acquiring Hong Kong banks.
In the long run, from the perspective of the transparency of information, a cross-strait financial supervision agreement will be necessary. But there is no hope of signing such an agreement, because the cross-strait political deadlock is not yet resolved. Therefore, we should utilize Hong Kong's financial supervision mechanism and allow the Hong Kong branches of Taiwanese banks to set up branches in China.
By using Hong Kong's advantage under the CEPA, Taiwan's financial institutions can benefit from the CEPA too.
Other service industries should also think about whether they need to enter the China market via Hong Kong after the CEPA takes effect.
Two, from the perspective of separating politics from trade and economic issues, Taiwan cannot accept a CEPA model under "one country, two systems."
Vincent Siew (
It is true that the cross-strait political situation and economic and industrial development have diverged seriously. For example, when it comes to the literal meanings of "arrangement" and "agreement," some contend that "arrangement" is a product of "one country, two systems" and that "agreement" should be used on grounds of equality and dignity.
I have no intention of refuting this idea, but from the perspective of industrial development, negotiations on the cross-strait division of labor and trade-economic cooperation should be treated as more important than formal nomenclature.
It is worth thinking twice about whether seeking a correct name for everything will hinder economic development and business opportunities.
Hong Chi-chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Francis Huang
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS