The National People's Congress passed two important pieces of legislation in Beijing last month -- the Property Law and the Corporate Income Tax Law. The property law strengthens protection of private property, the greatest beneficiaries being politically powerful and influential people who have taken private ownership of public property. Private citizens, however, are taking the lead in forcing the government to protect their rights.
One example of this is a Chongqing couple dubbed "the stubborn nail" in the Chinese press who recently stirred up a media frenzy across China with their fight to keep their home from being razed by developers. The corporate income tax law concerns China-based Taiwanese businesspeople who, despite this, have shown little interest in the law. This abnormal reaction is but a reflection of the abnormalities of a Chinese society in which Taiwanese businesspeople had to tolerate whatever the government decides without being able to express their own opinions. If they do, they will only get into trouble.
To attract foreign investment, both Hong Kong and Singapore offer corporate income tax reductions of 1 percent, a substantial amount for a company. Conversely, Beijing recently raised the corporate income tax rate for foreign investors from 15 percent to 25 percent. Only companies making extortionate profits can stand such a massive increase, particularly at a time when operating costs have increased.
I wonder why foreign investors and Taiwanese businesspeople still remain quiet? Is it because they have come up with a solution to the problem? If they don't withdraw their investments, they must come up with a better strategy, but if they really are planning to withdraw investments, they must do so quietly to avoid last-minute blackmail.
In the past, the corporate income tax rate for Chinese-owned enterprises was 35 percent, while for foreign investors, it was 15 percent. This was certainly unfair, but at that time, China needed foreign capital and felt forced to do so.
The Chinese enterprises experiencing this unfair treatment were mostly the ones not very well-connected. Well-connected enterprises already had overseas investments which they brought back into China as so-called "fake" foreign capital.
The task of using foreign investment to kickstart China's economic development has been completed. China's foreign exchange reserves have already reached the US$1 trillion mark and the pressure to appreciate the yuan remains high. Beijing thus seems to believe it can now drive out foreign investment.
Why else, given China's economic situation and financial income, would Beijing raise the corporate income tax to the extent that it makes things difficult for foreign investors, helping eliminate small- and medium-sized Taiwanese and Hong Kong companies.
Beijing also fears an exodus of foreign capital from China, which explains the corporate income tax law mentioning differential treatment. This could be why Finance Minister Jin Renqing (
What Jin was driving at was that Articles 25 to 28 of the law stipulate that high-tech companies and small companies with small profits can still receive preferential treatment and a five-year buffer period.
The problem is that this legislation is rigid while people are flexible. The definitions of "high-tech companies" and "small companies with small profits" are left to government officials at different levels. Clearly, the law will only give corrupt Chinese officials another chance to extort money from Taiwanese companies, thus increasing operating costs. Can they survive without cooking their books?
If Taiwan's high-tech sector loses its advantage by enhancing China's sector, Taiwanese companies could be hit by the 35-percent corporate income tax.
This is why Taiwanese businesspeople must look beyond short term preferential treatment.
Not long ago, the World Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce met in Dallas, Texas. During the meeting, China-based Taiwanese businesspeople complained that when they first started investing in China, everything was rosy and they felt like they were in heaven, hearing slogans such as "Taiwanese businesspeople first" and "Taiwanese businesspeople take the lead."
But there always comes a day when the balloon bursts and you're dragged down into a bottomless pit.
Come back to Taiwan, there's a place for you here.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS