The government’s latest foreign trade data show that the trade surplus continued to rise last month — reaching US$3.17 billion from US$2.14 billion in April. The figures were also up US$950 million, or 42.6 percent, from April last year.
In the first five months of this year, the cumulative trade surplus amounted to US$13.77 billion, according to Ministry of Finance figures released last week. That figure was more than twice the US$6.53 billion surplus registered a year earlier.
A trade surplus is the difference between a country’s exports and imports when the value of exports is greater. Ordinarily, a large trade surplus is a blessing and helps to maintain confidence in the economy. In terms of the value of GDP, an expanding trade surplus also bodes well.
But not this time.
A closer check at the latest trade data reveals that the sizable trade surplus Taiwan registered came about because the decline in the nation’s imports was much larger than that for exports amid the global slowdown.
Last month, for example, exports fell 31.4 percent year-on-year to US$16.17 billion, while imports posted a 39.1 percent decline to US$13.01 billion. Between January and last month, exports and imports were still much lower than a year ago in the wake of the recession, with exports falling 35.1 percent to US$71.54 billion and imports crashing by 44.3 percent to US$57.77 billion.
No wonder, then, that citing the surplus has become a convenient ruse among government officials hoping to avoid accountability for subdued export activity. The economy may have bottomed out, but a recovery could be a long time coming because recent indicators of employment, domestic consumption and corporate investment remain dull.
The latest trade data offer insights into the dimming prospects for corporate investment. According to the ministry’s figures, imports of capital equipment contracted by 44.2 percent year-on-year to US$8.4 billion in the first five months, while imports of agricultural and industrial raw materials shrank by 46.8 percent to US$43.5 billion over the same period.
This indicates that local firms are still troubled by the sharp downturn in business fundamentals. Most importantly, these firms’ reluctance to invest at this time poses a serious challenge to the nation’s exports in later months if the companies can’t expand capacity rapidly enough to keep up with demand.
That is to say, Taiwan’s economy will not proceed at full steam as long as corporate investment is so heavily restrained. Other economic data released recently also contain mixed signals, and the public should be cautious about pinning hopes too heavily on other improving economic fundamentals.
The same applies to the recent euphoria on the local stock market. The government has interpreted this as a signal of improving sentiment among investors, though the market has been driven by rapidly increasing liquidity because investors have been buying up China-related shares rather than sticking to business fundamentals.
The current task for Taiwan’s economy — to climb back to where it was one or two years ago — promises to be long and onerous. It requires a collective effort to ensure that the recovery is sustainable.
What this task does not need is political fudging of the meaning behind the numbers.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS