Even More Important is Keeping Our Roots on Taiwan

Even More Important is Keeping Our Roots on Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 7, 2010

ECFA has been signed. Taiwan's economic situation has now entered a new phase. This does not mean immediate tariff reductions on the 539 goods and 11 services our side negotiated. The other side's 267 products will soon run their course. Everything must wait until January 1 next year before taking effect. Tariffs will not be fully eliminated until late 2012. How will this transitional period differ from the previous one or two years?

Only one thing will be different. Before ECFA was signed, the Ma administration and the opposition DPP were engaged in a tug of war. To promote their agendas, one side painted an overly rosy picture. The other side resorted to political intrigue, electioneering sleight of hand, and ideological demagoguery in an all-out campaign to demonize ECFA.

That is all in the past. The two parties must immediately end their war of words. They must work on behalf of the nation and the people. The ruling and opposition parties must pursue the same goal. They must ensure that ECFA works to our full advantage, and reduce any ill effects to the minimum.

Green Camp politicians allege that ECFA will merely enrich the wealthy, widen the gap between rich and poor, and strengthen the strong while weakening the weak. Lee Teng-hui is screaming that ECFA will hollow out Taiwan's industrial base, and that people will starve. Such scenarios are alarmist and exaggerated. But they are scenarios those in authority must be prepared to deal with. The new economic situation may lead to inequities, and the government must ensure a smooth transition.

The gap between rich and poor may increase for three reasons. The first is the dumping of low cost products produced by cheap labor on Taiwan. Manufacturers on Taiwan may be forced to engage in desperate price-cutting. The second is changes in industrial structure. Capital-intensive and technology-intensive companies will profit handsomely. Traditional production-based SMEs will shrink endlessly. The former will hire fewer workers at higher wages, leading to the polarization of rich and poor. The third is tariff reductions, large scale liberalization, and industry-wide corporate relocations. These will lead to capital outflows, a brain drain, and the hollowing out of industry.

Of the three, the third is the most frightening, but also the least likely. For two decades, we have watched companies pick up stakes on Taiwan to relocate on the Mainland. The most critical factors are the lack of direct links, which increase transportation costs; too high tariffs, which reduce the competitiveness of exports when compared to Mainland products; and cheap and abundant Mainland labor, against which Taiwan simply cannot compete. Now, given direct links and ECFA, the first two reasons have ceased to exist. For upstream industries not reliant on cheap labor, the reason for relocation has also disappeared. The industrial chain on Taiwan is more complete. The service sector is stronger. The basic infrastructure is better. The rule of law is more deeply rooted. Upstream vendors who relocated earlier may well return. Cheap Mainland labor may tempt manufacturers. But the wave of Foxconn pay raises is rapidly diminishing this temptation. If the ROC government can plan a "special economic zone" as soon as possible, and establish an attractive economic and trade environment, what reason does it have to fear the hollowing out of Taiwan's economy?

Low cost Mainland products may force wage cuts in weaker Taiwan industries -- if the government does nothing. But low cost Mainland products are of notoriously poor quality. Taiwan manufacturers offer far better quality, creativity, and design. Given a level playing field, at home and abroad, we have a comparative advantage. The problem is that in the past the government did nothing. It allowed inferior quality brands, counterfeit brands, deceptive business practices, and "big box stores" to run amok. It allowed local goods to be squeezed out by inferior quality goods, leaving Taiwan manufacturers nowhere to go. Only recently has it responded properly.

In terms of industrial structure, those most likely to benefit from tax cuts and liberalization are highly competitive big businesses. Those most likely to be harmed are small and medium enterprises unable to engage in multinational operations. This is the biggest detriment to the equitable distribution of jobs and income. But the true strength of Taiwan lies in this group of SMEs. The Ma administration should make timely use of its 95 billion in capital. It should support and promote tens of thousands of promising small and medium enterprises. If the scale of these businesses can be doubled, hundreds of thousands of new jobs can be created. Creating job opportunities is the best way to solve economic problems. It is the most important goal of economic development.

In short, ECFA does far more than solve problems for Taiwan companies. More importantly, it improves Taiwan's economic health. In other words, it benefits us not merely by "advancing into [Mainland] China." Even more importantly, it helps us keep our roots on Taiwan.

更重要的是根留台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.07.07 02:34 am

ＥＣＦＡ完成簽署，台灣經濟情勢進入新階段。這並不意味我方的五三九項商品及十一項服務業立刻即可享受減免關稅，對方的二六七項產品也會馬上長驅直入；因為一切都要等到明年一月一日才開始發動，而且要遲至後年年底關稅方可降至零。然則，在這個過渡期間，與過去一、兩年有何不同？

真正的不同，只在一件事上：ＥＣＦＡ簽署之前，是馬政府與在野黨的拉鋸戰；一邊為了促其成功，將種種好處說得天花亂墜；另一邊則基於政治權謀、選戰操作，或是意識形態作祟，極盡可能地將ＥＣＦＡ妖魔化。

俱往矣。如今兩黨應當立刻結束口水戰，為台灣計、為台灣人民計，朝野只能追求同一個目標：讓ＥＣＦＡ創造的效益達到最大，而將一切衝擊、傷害，都可藉完善的對策未雨綢繆，降至最小。

綠營政治人物認為，ＥＣＦＡ將造成財富重分配、擴大貧富差距，使強者更強、弱者更弱；李登輝更高喊，ＥＣＦＡ將使台灣產業空洞化，許多台灣人民將會沒有飯吃。這些訴求或許危言聳聽，或許過度渲染，卻仍是主政當局必須面對的問題；務須做到縱然經濟新局會出現損益不平均的情勢，仍然能在政府的掌握下平順轉型。

其實，損益差距之可能擴大，不外三個原因：其一是對方廉價勞工的低價產品傾銷台灣，逼迫台灣產品走投無路削價以應。其二是產業結構改變，資本與技術密集的大型企業大獲利市，傳產型的中小企業則相形見絀，不斷萎縮；前者用人少而薪酬高，貧富乃朝向兩極發展。其三則為隨著關稅減免、大幅開放，企業群起外移，導致資金、人才大失血，產業空洞化。

三者之中，第三個原因最可怕，但也最不可能。因為二十年來，我們眼見大批台灣企業出走對岸，最關鍵的理由，無非是無法直航、運輸成本高昂；關稅太高、出口產品在對岸競爭力受挫；以及大陸勞工低廉而充沛，遠非台灣可及。但透過直航與ＥＣＦＡ，前兩個原因皆已不復存在，對那些不仰賴廉價勞工的中上游產業而言，外移理由已消失。相反地，由於台灣產業鍊完整而周密、周邊服務業強大、基礎設施優良，以及民主法治環境遠勝對岸，已經外移的中上游廠商還有可能回流。至於大陸廉價勞工對廠商的誘惑，隨富士康掀起加薪潮之後，正在快速降溫。倘若台灣能從速規畫「經貿特區」，建構近悅遠來的經貿環境，豈會空洞化？

至於台灣弱勢產業受低價大陸產品衝擊，迫使工資調降；若政府對此一無作為，的確可能發生。但大陸產品價低質差的名聲遠颺；台灣廠商的品質、創意、設計能力，都遠過於彼；只要放在同樣通路上公平競爭，在國內外，我們都有相對優勢。問題出在，長久以來政府的確一無作為，任由劣質品剪標、偽標，魚目混珠，而大賣場又唯利是圖，捨本土貨而就劣質品，使台灣廠商行銷無門。直到最近，才見到若干正確行動。

再就產業結構而言，減稅開放，最易獲利者當然是競爭力大增的大企業，最可能受創者多為無力跨國經營、自守一隅的中小企業，這對就業及所得分配最為不利。但台灣真正的實力，卻多潛藏在這一群中小企業之中。藉此時機，馬政府若能善用其九五○億資金，在中小企業中挑選數萬可造之才，全力扶持、提升，若其規模可因而倍增，新增的就業機會即可達數十萬。創造就業機會，是解決經濟問題的標本兼治之術，也是最重要的經濟發展目標。

總之，ＥＣＦＡ不止要解決「台商」的經營問題，更重要的是要改善整個「台灣」的經貿體質。也就是說，不只要從「前進中國」獲利，更要有利於「根留台灣」。