A rather peculiar atmosphere is looming over the political landscape. On one hand, there is Yuanta-Polaris Research Institute chairman Liang Kuo-yuan (梁國源), who said that Taiwan has fallen into a state of “suspended growth,” as he compared the nation’s economy to a house built on liquefied soil, with a high risk of collapsing. On the other, president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), when interviewed by a pro-China media outlet, said she hoped China would express more goodwill before May 20, the date of her inauguration. Some media outlets have reported that the cross-strait service trade agreement might be sent directly to legislative review. Although these reports were immediately refuted, there is no shortage of similarly confusing news, stirring doubts in the public’s mind about the direction of the incoming government.
After Tsai was elected, she named five major targets for innovation and development — green energy, biotechnology, national defense, smart machinery and the Internet of Things — and visited several representative companies to demonstrate her intention to revive the nation’s economic momentum, reduce unemployment and boost salaries. The five industries are clearly centered around the nation’s manufacturing sector, which can consolidate the strengths of different regions to enhance connections between industries and make full use of this synergy to boost the nation’s flagging economy. Although promoting the five industries is extremely challenging, it is the solution to reviving the economy.
However, the key to industrial independence lies in the nation’s ability to overcome its addiction to China. For example, 40 percent of Taiwanese exports go to China, more than 50 percent of Taiwan’s overseas manufacturing bases are in China and tourism policies mainly cater to Chinese visitors. It is only by overcoming this addiction that Taiwan’s full productive potential can be realized.
Politically, Tsai has opted to maintain the cross-strait “status quo.” However, while Tsai recognizes the fact that the 1992 meeting did take place, she did not in any way or form acknowledged the so-called “1992 consensus.” Although maintaining the “status quo” might not contribute to the consolidation of Taiwan’s sovereignty, some members of the public can live with it in the face of the military threat across the Strait.
However, the question is whether the Tsai administration would be able to resist the mistaken notion that the cross-strait trade in services and goods agreements are good for the economy and thus walk straight into the trap set by China. It is understandable that given the depth of cross-strait economic and trade links, they must be regulated and guaranteed by laws and agreements. However, Taiwan’s economy already leans too much on China and the government must adopt diversification to reduce this economic dependence. Furthermore, China’s economy is showing signs of a decline, and the deeper Taiwan depends on China, the greater the damage it would incur.
Free trade is considered to be an irresistible trend by many, who think it is the only way for a country to make the best use of its comparative advantages and the only way to make each participating economy a winner. However, free trade is not a panacea; with the easing of regulations and tariff barriers, stronger countries are in a better position to capitalize on their competitiveness, as they have more advantages.
Moreover, China is not a market economy; its economic development and industrial policies are there to serve its political purposes, not to mention that these policies usually run counter to a free-market system. On top of that, China uses national resources, such as subsidies, taxes and administrative measures, to support to its own industries, enabling it to monopolize the market and use dumping to drive out competition. Signing trade agreements with China does not mean that Taiwan will be engaged in an authentic free-trade relationship with China.Instead, what Taiwan will get is a competitor, whose scale and modus operandi are that of a nation, and this competitor can bury Taiwanese industries.
Trade usually involves the distribution of benefits among insiders, which can easily lead to conflict. Taiwan’s GDP growth mostly comes from its trade with Hong Kong and China. On one hand, this creates superficial economic growth, while on the other, the resultant surpluses only line the pockets of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople, while the profits that accrue to Taiwan’s domestic employees decrease year by year. In short, Taiwan’s GDP is growing, but job opportunities and salaries are not. Once the trade in services and goods agreements are signed, the peculiarity of Taiwan’s economic situation will inevitably be exacerbated. Free trade can bring about prosperity, but it can also result in economic declines; the direction it takes depends on who your primary trading partners are. In Taiwan’s case, it is China.
The result of Taiwan’s trading with China is twofold. First, all the so-called “cross-strait peace dividends” might be monopolized by Chinese enterprises. Second, when it comes to industrial competitiveness, although Taiwanese and Chinese industries share similarities, China uses policy tools to bolster its industries, and mergers and acquisitions to gain control of Taiwan’s top businesses, especially in the semiconductor industry, to establish its mighty “red supply chain.” If the cross-strait trade agreements are signed, the strength of Chinese enterprises would significantly increase. Few, if any, Taiwanese businesses would be able to rival them.
If Taiwan intends to boost its economy, it has to gain full understanding of the root cause of its economic decline, which is its overreliance on China. If Taiwan wants economic independence, it must overcome its addiction to China, and the cross-strait trade agreements are clearly a part of this addiction. Should the incoming government want a taste of this forbidden fruit, then there is nothing much to expect for the nation’s economic future.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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