Taiwan External Trade Development Council chairman Wang Chih-kang (王志剛) said on July 1 that during the first five months this year, South Korean products captured a 9.2 percent share of China’s market, while Taiwanese products’ market share fell to 7.5 percent from 8.6 percent last year. He added that once Taiwan’s market share dropped below 5 percent, there would be no possibility of a comeback.
A year ago, senior government officials said that after the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was signed, Taiwanese exports to China would receive tariff incentives and become more competitive than South Korean products. Why, then, is Taiwan’s market share in China lower than South Korea’s, and why is it dropping?
Before answering this question, Wang deserves thanks for pointing out these facts and exposing the government’s lies. Otherwise, the public would still think that the ECFA was beneficial to Taiwanese exports and has profited the nation.
South Korea’s market share in China rose from 9.6 percent in 2001 to 9.9 percent last year. It is not a significant change, but the small rise shows that South Korea’s market share has approximated the growth in its trade with China during the past decade. On the other hand, Taiwan’s market share fell from 11.2 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2007 and 8.6 percent last year. The main drop occurred after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power and embarked on improving relations with China. The largest drop occurred after the ECFA took effect, from 8.6 percent last year to 7.5 percent in the first five months of this year.
So why is this happening?
The answer is simple: It is happening because Taiwan signed the ECFA. After liberalizing trade, the manufacture of products for the Chinese market has been moved to China, meaning that those goods are no longer imported from Taiwan. This trend has been accelerated by the recent ECFA-related relaxation of restrictions on Taiwan’s core high-tech industries.
If the ECFA, a framework supposed to connect Taiwan with China, is carried out in its entirety, a “center-periphery effect” — the attraction of a smaller market to a much larger market — will occur and production of semi-finished products and other Taiwanese products will move to the “center” — China — and Taiwanese businesses will grow roots there. Taiwanese exports to China would stagnate, before beginning to decrease. This implies that the items on the ECFA early-harvest list would be the only ones to have benefited from the agreement, while the harm caused by the ECFA on the overall economy would greatly outweigh the benefits.
While I can sympathize with Wang’s comments, made out of concern for the nation’s economy, he failed to see the real source of the problem. What he should be worried about is a second large migration of Taiwanese industries to China caused by the ECFA. Instead, Wang suggested that the government increase the number of council staffers in China. However, if the council does what it is supposed to do, it would help Taiwanese businesspeople establish themselves in China even faster, thus achieving the opposite effect.
Taiwanese hotels, property developers, healthcare providers, night markets, restaurants, retail stores and so on have lately been going mad over a few hundred individual Chinese tourists with limited spending power. China-leaning media outlets are falling over each other to report these visits and the “economic benefits” these tourists supposedly bring. This distorted kind of China fever proves one thing only: Under Ma, Taiwan has been economically marginalized, with all industries except for tourism slowing down.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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