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
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and