President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said that, “McDonald’s, KFC and Starbucks have come over to Taiwan,” that “McDonald’s has opened 390 branches in this nation, it has been here for 30 years, employing over 200,000 people. When it first came to Taiwan, people were concerned about the impact it would have on small traditional food outlets...opening up makes Taiwan more competitive... being worried about it is like Chicken Little panicking the sky will fall.”
If Ma wants to use Uncle Sam’s McDonald’s, KFC and Starbucks as examples, then let us run with that.
Is the entire staff of these companies, from management down to counter staff, comprised of foreigners, paid more than double the average local wage, unable to speak the local language, or are they Taiwanese who can communicate with their customers? Would they be able to employ staff when they first came over here had they offered less than the going rate? Indeed, have the owners of McDonald’s, KFC and Starbucks suppressed salary levels in Taiwan? Have they not given people in Taiwan jobs?
However, what if today, there were Chinese investors opening stores selling hamburgers, fried chicken, coffee, etc? Workers’ salaries would fall and if not, then there would be no job creation. Businesses are not charities — they are profit-seeking enterprises. To increase profits, slashing wages is the best way.
If you think NT$22,000 is low, then what do you think a boss from China, where the average wage is typically a quarter of that, thinks? They would consider it too much, not too little. If they are to make a profit, they would have to insist upon pay cuts of 20 or 30 percent. The Taiwanese will just have to “be good” and accept it. If they say no, Chinese bosses will find it easy to bring in others happy just to have a job. It would only take the price of a plane ticket to bring people — management and staff alike — from China.
What would happen if Chinese investors were allowed to open stores here is they would make the most of the dual advantages of the lack of language barrier and a low domestic salary level. If they could not employ local staff for less, they would import Chinese to replace them. Bad money chases out good.
This is why Taiwanese are so against the opening up of the domestic service sector to Chinese employers. It is not just that Taiwanese are concerned, it is more that they are up in arms.
Even more worrying is that, concealed within the service Trojan agreement, it says that Chinese immigrants and spies need only prepare the sum of US$300,000 — money which can be used repeatedly — and they can enter Taiwan, perfectly legally, for three years, after which their stay can be extended for another three years, then another, indefinitely.
From a national security perspective, what chance does Taiwan have?
If Taiwan is to sign a service trade agreement, why would the first be with the only nation in the entire world that has ambitions on Taiwan’s sovereignty?
Nobody wants Taiwan to close itself off from the world, or to oppose the nation’s engagement with globalization. However, what is objectionable is tying Taiwan to China, and equating China with the rest of the world.
If Taiwan is to sign a service trade pact, why not engage with the US, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia or the EU — countries and regions that do not harbor hostile intent toward the nation? Nobody would oppose that.
China, rather than being the first country we turn to, should be the very last.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a former associate professor at National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,