President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says that an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China would not involve political issues of sovereignty and the “one China” principle. He says that after a free trade agreement between China and ASEAN comes into effect next year, Taiwanese products will lose their price competitiveness against products from ASEAN nations because of increased tariffs. Worse yet, Taiwan will be marginalized, domestic companies will move abroad and the nation will stand to lose 114,000 jobs. This economic discourse contains many fallacies.
This is not the first time the government has made such outlandish statements. In the past, the government claimed that more China-based Taiwanese businesspeople would return and invest in Taiwan following the opening of direct cross-strait transportation links. However, official statistics show that between September and January, they only invested about NT$10 billion (US$290 million) in Taiwan, while domestic companies invested more than NT$140 billion in China.
Moreover, a survey conducted at the end of last year on the willingness of Taiwanese businesspeople in China to invest in Taiwan following the opening of direct links showed that 63 percent of respondents said they would not change their investments, 28 percent said they would double their investments in China and only 9 percent said they would reduce their investments in China.
Ma has once again made a spurious assertion, only this time the subject has changed from direct transportation links to signing an ECFA with China.
The Ma administration has also suggested that if the two sides of the Taiwan Strait were to sign an ECFA, domestic companies would not move to China. This statement does not hold true. Were Taiwan to sign an economic pact with China, factor-price equalization theory tells us that manufacturing activities move to areas that have lower costs. In other words, an ECFA with China would only accelerate the relocation of domestic businesses to China and increase unemployment.
Ma says Taiwan is facing losing 114,000 jobs if it does not ink an economic agreement with China. The presumption of the study he cited does not tally with the real situation. Not only does it fail to take into consideration the differences between nominal and actual tariff rates, but the subjects of the study were ASEAN Plus Three — China, Japan and South Korea — rather than ASEAN Plus One — China. Therefore, the figures the government quoted may very well be exaggerated 24 times.
The Ma administration also says Taiwan will be marginalized by the launch of ASEAN Plus Three if the nation does not ink an economic pact with China. However, a study showed that the damage would amount to less than 0.2 percent of the nation’s GDP and that it would not inflict severe damage on Taiwan’s economy. Ma has exaggerated the adverse impact of ASEAN Plus Three on the nation, and besides, signing an ECFA with China does not automatically lead to Taiwan joining the ASEAN market. Unless China promises that, the government should not talk of big pie in the sky to fool the public.
The Taiwanese economy should rely on signing economic pacts with economies with higher national incomes, such as the US, Japan and the EU. Only then can we improve our manufacturing technologies and raise the profitability of our exports.
In the spirit of democratic participation, such a highly contentious policy as the ECFA should be put to the public for discussion and then decided by means of a referendum. Only then can we produce a strategy toward China that prevents the nation from being torn apart.
Cheng Li-chiun is chief executive 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