Every economic policy has advantages and disadvantages. Sound policymaking involves a balance so that benefits are maximized and drawbacks minimized. A corollary of this is that policymakers ought not take significant risks to gain small advantages.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration are focusing on only the benefits of their cross-strait economic and trade policies and ignoring their disadvantages.
The result of this approach is that necessary precautions for the possible negative consequences of these policies are being ignored.
If this behavior only applied to the occasional policy, it would be understandable and forgivable.
OVERLOOKING
But there is growing evidence that the Ma administration is overlooking almost every possible negative consequence of its cross-strait initiatives.
Direct cross-strait flights are one example of this approach. Ma has repeatedly said that the flights would make it easier to sell Taiwanese produce to China and would therefore benefit Taiwanese farmers.
However, he has neglected to mention that the reverse is also true: Direct flights will make it easier for China to sell its produce in Taiwan — thus adversely affecting the domestic agricultural industry.
The fact is that the amount of produce and processed agricultural products that China exports to Taiwan already exceeds the amount that Taiwan exports to China by a factor of five to six.
With the convenience of direct cross-strait links, it is very likely that this situation will persist. China will continue to sell five or six times more produce and processed goods in Taiwan than Taiwan sells in China.
COVERING UP
However, the Ma government has tried to cover up the repercussions of its poorly designed policies and has managed to convince the public that direct flights will be a complete success as far as Taiwanese farmers are concerned.
The government has also failed to take necessary precautions against the negative consequences that will follow from this.
The Ma administration promotes direct flights by saying that they are likely to attract more Chinese tourists, but again it has avoided mentioning that it will also be more convenient for Taiwanese tourists to visit China.
Considering that a three-day trip to China currently costs less than a trip to Kenting (墾丁), Hualien or Taitung, many holidaymakers are likely to prefer taking their vacation in China rather than staying in Taiwan.
ABOLISHED
In addition, the government recently abolished regulations stipulating that public servants could only apply for subsidies using their Citizen’s Travel Card (國民旅遊卡) while traveling abroad. This will have a serious impact on the development of the domestic recreation and tourism industries.
Moreover, those traveling to China will bring back low-priced products.
This will in turn harm the nation’s retailers.
The Ma administration isn’t taking this likely fallout seriously, and the result is that it has not mapped out complementary measures to reduce the impact.
Many such incidents demonstrate that the Ma administration and associated individuals have attempted to conceal the risks of the government’s cross-strait policies by exaggerating the benefits.
Chen Po-chih is chairman of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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