Hundreds of tourism workers yesterday took to the streets in Taipei, holding banners reading “No job, no life,” and “Taiwan and the Mainland are related like a family,” as they demanded that the government provide financial support, market incentives and policy leeway for business opportunities in response to the decline in the number of Chinese tourists.
While the financial and operational difficulties facing the tourism industry are understandable, many people cannot help but feel puzzled by the demonstrators’ appeals, with skeptical minds wondering exactly what the protesters hoped to accomplish.
There has been a sharp decline in the number of Chinese visitors since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the Democratic Progressive Party took office in May, with government statistics showing a 30 percent decline year-on-year in the number of Chinese group tours to Taiwan, whereas last year Taiwan had 10.5 million visitors, among which 4.18 million were from China.
Given that the drop in the number of Chinese visitors is a result of Beijing tightening its control and management of Chinese tourists to Taiwan, should the protesters not direct their grievances at the Chinese government, rather the Taiwanese government?
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson An Fengshan (安峰山) said in early June that the failure of the Tsai administration to recognize the so-called “1992 consensus” was why cross-strait contact and communications had been “suspended” since May 20.
In other words, tourists from China are not simply tourists like those from other nations, but tools used by the Chinese government as part of its “unification by trade” strategy for Taiwan.
Would it not be more reasonable for tourism operators, who followed the rosy picture of the Chinese tourist market painted by the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration without making due assessment of risk management and control, to direct their anger at former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for his government’s failure to warn them about the serious political risk that might be involved? Not to mention that the tourism operators have themselves to blame for not diversifying their consumer basis and not knowing the risk of putting all their eggs in one basket.
However, many tourism operators blame the Tsai government for its reluctance to accept the “1992 consensus” that China insists is the political foundation for cross-strait exchanges.
In case the tourism operators have not realized, what they are doing plays right into the hands of China, which is using the sneaky strategy of using commerce to achieve its political goals by enforcing economic sanctions to pressure Taiwanese businesses.
If the government caves in to the tourism operators’ wishes and accepts the “1992 consensus” in exchange for the resumption of the large flow of Chinese visitors to Taiwan, it would just mean that China’s “unification by trade” strategy works, and would pave the way for more of these economic gimmicks to achieve its political goals by coercing the Taiwanese government through Taiwanese businesses.
According to information from the Tourism Bureau, in contrast with the decline in the number of Chinese tourists, there has been an increase in the number of visitors from Japan and South Korea from January to July this year. Figures from the bureau show that 6.28 million international visitors arrived in Taiwan from January to July, which is 7.93 percent more than the same period last year.
The nation’s tourism outlook is not as bleak as the protesters claimed, and hopefully the people who took to the streets yesterday could work together with the government by providing constructive suggestions, rather than allowing themselves to be used by China as a tool to coerce the government.
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