Today the nation will receive the first cross-strait flights agreed upon last month. There is hope that tourists will spend enough money to significantly bolster the economy, but an increasing number of people are realizing that the benefits of cross-strait tourism amount to only so much and will benefit only a small section of the economy.
The decision to welcome Chinese tourists is not new. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government also invited Chinese tourists, but Beijing declined to negotiate lest the DPP score political points at home that could win it another term in power. But when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) offered to admit Chinese tourists starting this month and to launch weekend cross-strait flights, China came to the negotiating table, allowing Ma to deliver on his election promise. It also agreed to reopen cross-strait talks after a decade-long hiatus.
If we believe the media hype, tourists from China will prove to be the nation’s economic salvation. Ma repeatedly said Chinese tourists would spend NT$60 billion (US$1.97 billion) a year. But that figure was based on 3,000 tourists entering the country per day. Beijing has since decided to allow at most 1,000 tourists per day, which, if Ma’s estimates of average spending per tourist are correct, would put the annual figure at NT$20 billion.
Airports, airlines, county and city governments, scenic area administrations and businesses are vying for business opportunities — real or imagined — as the tourists arrive. With little thought to problems of capacity and adequate facilities, eight airports have been appointed to handle direct flights. Once the novelty is gone, however, and we’re back to the daily routine, most of these airports may have to close their extra services because the small number of daily cross-strait flights will not support them.
Mandarin Airlines (華信航空) offers one example of the imprudence of laying out plans based on political symbolism instead of a sound understanding of the market. To be able to offer the first cross-strait direct flight, the airline planned a 3:30am flight to Nanjing, but had to cancel because it did not attract enough passengers.
Many scenic areas, hotels and shop owners have waited impatiently, rubbing their hands and calculating the profits they stand to gain from Chinese tourists. They have refurbished their establishments and put up signs in simplified Chinese. But the government’s pie in the sky may not be big enough to offer each of these establishments more than a few crumbs for their efforts.
Because Chinese tourists will travel in group tours, tour operators will control their itineraries. Establishments lucky enough to have agreements with these companies may do well, while their competitors will earn poor returns on their investment.
Improving the quality of the tourist experience should be part of broader improvements to the industry. The government and the private sector should not put so much of their stock in Chinese tourists but focus also on domestic and international tourism to bolster each sector of the economy. This is the best and most pragmatic approach, not least because of the unpredictability of cross-strait relations and Beijing’s “goodwill.”
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS