Preventing Mainland Students from Coming Compels Taiwan Universities to Leave

Preventing Mainland Students from Coming Compels Taiwan Universities to LeaveChina Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 28, 2010

Recently, several universities on the Mainland began recruiting high-scoring senior high students from Taiwan. This attracted public attention on Taiwan. The data suggests that in the coming years, such recruitment attempts will become an increasingly common. This has raised concern that the best students on Taiwan will be lost. News reports also indicate that the Mainland is attempting to persuade the National Taiwan University and other universities to establish special classes or campuses on the Mainland. Therefore, if the goverrnment prevents Mainland students from studying on Taiwan, the Mainland will induce our best universities to leave Taiwan.

The provision of higher education is a special kind of service industry. Education and other key service industries are under the aegis of different agencies. The Financial Supervisory Commission controls finance. The Ministry of Communications and Transportation controls tourism and telecommunications. The Department of Commerce controls retail shops. Most manufacturing industries find themselves in highly competitive circumstances. For example, suppose South Korea's Samsung panel industry gains an advantage. Taiwan's AUO will be hurt. If Toyota is impacted, global demand for Germany's Volkswagen or South Korea's Hyundai will increase. But not all service industries work this way. If the service sector in Nation A prospers, that does not mean a recession will hit the service sector in Nation B. Internationally speaking, service sector competition is not a zero-sum game. Take universities. An improvement in Beijing University's reputation will not diminish National Taiwan University's reputation. The two sides may both be recruiting students. But that does not imply a conflict of interest. It all depends on how the government approaches the matter.

In general, the Mainland wants exchanges with Taiwan. It has confidence in its economy. Therefore it has opened its arms to students from Taiwan. Taiwan's economy may not be as robust as the Mainland's, but that need not undermine our confidence. Calls for a halt to cross-Strait exchanges are largely ideologically motivated. Eight years of DPP rule has indoctrinated some on Taiwan with an "inordinate fear of Communism" rooted in ideological extremism. Two years ago, during the presidential election, a DPP campaign ad used language that dripped with contempt for people from the Mainland. It actually warned that "Parks will become toilets. Conversation will become expectoration." DPP fundamentalists are contemptuous even of wealthy tourists from the Mainland who came to Taiwan to spread money around. Imagine how they feel about patients who come to Taiwan seeking medical care, or scholars who come to Taiwan to take advantage of its educational resources.

Under a free economy, economic and trade exchanges between the two sides is certain to be quite complex. One cannot obstruct such exchanges simply by imposing one's will. Forcibly preventing people from coming to Taiwan could inadvertently force Taiwan to pay an even higher price. A fellow of the Academia Sinica Institute of Finance and Economics gave a speech on July 5 that cited a case worth the DPP's attention.

As everyone knows, Mainland China has a huge population. The standard of medical services however, is low. Among wealthy Mainlanders however, there is a strong demand for quality medical care. Medical care on Taiwan is among the best in the world. The quality of doctors is excellent. The language and cultural pose no barriers. Wealthy patients from the Mainland are naturally going to seek treatment on Taiwan. Taiwan must make an effort to attract these wealthy patients. If one is afraid that outside patients will "consume" local health care resources, one can establish "special zones." One can provide a limited variety of medical treatments in designated zones. That way health care for outsiders can remain distinct from government provided health care for insiders. But Taiwan independence fundamentalists are obstinately opposed even to such special administrative regions. Academia Sinica members have issued a stern warning. The Taiwan independence fundamentalists' hatred and insularity will almost certainly harm Taiwan.

The government on Taiwan can refuse to allow Mainland patients to seek medical treatment on Taiwan. But this will not diminish the urgent medical needs of wealthy patients from the Mainland. Market incentives will lead to the establishment of many hospitals on Mainland China. These hospitals will recruit many doctors. Over time, as long as wealthy patients on the Mainland are willing to pay, hospitals and doctors on Taiwan will establish operations on the Mainland. In the language of international trade, prohibiting patients from the Mainland from "inputting" to Taiwan, will lead to the "outputting" of hospitals and doctors to the Mainland. The same is true for cross-Strait education. The "inputting" of patients is usually referred to as international medical services. The "outputting" of hospitals on the other hand, is considered direct foreign investment (FDI). Robert Mundell is the Father of the Euro. Forty years ago he warned that trade in goods and services is interchangeable with direct foreign investment. If a government prevents the flow of merchandise, the consequence is often capital flight. This capital flight is clearly more deleterious to the nation from which it flees than the flow of any merchandise.

In short, those who would prohibit trade with the Mainland had better think matters through. The consequence of governmental barriers is frequently capital flight. Capital flight really can "hollow out" Taiwan. Those attempting to prevent trade with the Mainland usually characterize themselves as "Taiwanese patriots." They usually characterize anyone who "hollows out Taiwan" as a "traitor to Taiwan." But this is precisely what they are guilty of. The line between "patriotism" and "treason" is often quite thin. It often depends on a sophisticated understanding of trade theory. The slanderous propaganda in their newspaper ads may have a short term impact. But in the long run how will these self-styled "Taiwanese patriots" escape blame for "hollowing out Taiwan?"


中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.07.28
社論－不讓陸生輸入 當心學校出走
本報訊

中國大陸若干大學近日依台灣高中生學測成績，吸引高分者前往就讀，已引起台灣社會的關注。資訊顯示，明年、後年，這樣的招生模式將日益擴張，引發各界擔心台灣優秀學生向外流失。此外，媒體報導對岸亦在吸引台大等大學赴陸設專班或分校。因此，如果台灣再不容許陸生「輸入」，恐怕台灣的優良大學就會被吸引「輸出」至對岸。

大專教育其實是一種特殊的服務業；除了教育之外，其他重要的服務業散見於金管會（金融業）、交通部（觀光與電信）、經濟部商業司（一般商店）等。一般製造業有比較明顯的競爭態勢；例如，假設韓國三星在面板業取得優勢，則台灣友達等就會受傷；如果日本豐田受到打擊，則全世界汽車需求就會走向德國福斯或韓國現代。但所有的服務業並沒有這種特徵：甲國服務業興盛，並不會使乙國服務業衰頹。簡言之，國與國之間的服務業不是零和賽局。就大學而言，北大聲名變好並不會危及台大的名聲，故兩岸之間爭取學生，並不涉及任何產業利益的此消彼長，其關鍵就只是在於政府政策的「態度」。

大致而言，中國大陸希望與台交流、在經濟上也有信心，故對於台灣學生一向敞開雙臂歡迎。台灣的整體經濟實力可能稍遜於對岸，但也不至於信心受損；而島內阻止兩岸交流的主要聲音，主要是出自強烈的意識形態。在民進黨主政八年之後，台灣民間部分人士「仇匪恨匪」的意識極為高張。兩年前總統大選前夕，民進黨的競選廣告竟赫然出現「公園變廁所、談吐變吐痰」的鄙夷對岸人民字眼。民進黨的基本教義派連對岸來台花鈔票的觀光客都如此鄙視，那麼對於來台看病者是否使用台灣醫療資源、來台就學者是否使用台灣教育資源，當然就更是耿耿於懷了。

但是，在自由經濟的運作之下，兩地之間的經貿往來，其互動十分複雜，不能以簡單的抵制阻絕手段任性處理。有時候，阻絕對岸人員來台，卻反而使台灣付出更慘痛的代價。中研院財經大院士在七月五日該院的一次演講中就提到一則事例，值得提出來給民進黨的朋友們參考。

如所周知，中國大陸人口多、醫療服務水準普遍不佳，而眾多有錢人對醫療的需求也十分強烈。台灣的醫療環境在全世界名列前茅，醫生水準普遍極佳，語言環境又相通，故當然是對岸有錢病人的求診對象。台灣為了吸引這群富有的對岸病患，當然應該極力爭取。外來病患若有侵蝕本地健保資源的顧慮，也可以用「特區」的規畫，限定地區限定醫療種類，以使國外診療與國內健保病患診療有所區隔。但即使限定特區營運，還是有基本教義派者強力反對開放。中研院士已提出嚴正警告：這樣的仇視與鎖國迷思，很可能更會傷害台灣。

若台灣堅決不讓中國大陸病患來看診，由於對岸有錢人強烈的醫療需求並未稍減，故市場誘因會促使許多人在中國市場設立醫院、召募醫生。久而久之，只要對岸富有病人所開出來的條件夠好，則台灣就會有醫院與醫生赴中國大陸開業。用國際貿易的術語來說，不准對岸的病人向台灣「輸入」，就一定會有台灣的醫院與醫生向對岸「輸出」，此情況與兩岸教育事業一模一樣。病人的輸入一般稱之為國際醫療服務，而醫院的輸出則屬直接外人投資（ＦＤＩ）。歐元之父孟岱爾在四十年前就告訴我們，商品服務的貿易與直接外人投資之間是有替代性的。一國若阻止商品貿易的流動，其後果往往是資本的跨國輸出，其對輸出國的傷害，顯然更為嚴重。

總之，那些強力阻止與中共做任何貿易的人可得想清楚：阻擋的後果往往是資本的外流，是實實在在的「掏空」台灣。力阻與對岸貿易的人通常以愛台灣自居，但是掏空台灣資本卻是標準的賣台行徑。這愛台與賣台之間曖昧的一線之隔要如何拿準原則，可要經得起細膩的貿易理論分析才算數。在報紙上刊個汙蔑性的廣告固然有文宣短效，但長期而言又豈能躲過「掏空台灣」的罵名。