Will Mainland Investments in Kaohsiung Harbor Really Endanger Taiwan?

Will Mainland Investments in Kaohsiung Harbor Really Endanger Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2012

Summary: The Investment Commission recently audited COSCO Pacific, the China Shipping Terminal Development Company, and the China Merchants Group. These Mainland enterprises, together with Taiwan's Yang Ming Marine Transport, are investing four billion dollars in the Kaohsiung Harbor Container Terminal Number Six Development Project. DPP legislators immediately voiced opposition. They claimed that allowing Mainland capital in would crowd out domestic investment, and even endanger national security. They demanded that the Ministry of Economic Affairs veto the project, immediately.

Full Text below:

The Investment Commission recently audited COSCO Pacific, the China Shipping Terminal Development Company, and the China Merchants Group. These Mainland enterprises, together with Taiwan's Yang Ming Marine Transport, are investing four billion dollars in the Kaohsiung Harbor Container Terminal Number Six Development Project. DPP legislators immediately voiced opposition. They claimed that allowing Mainland capital in would crowd out domestic investment, and even endanger national security. They demanded that the Ministry of Economic Affairs veto the project, immediately.

Green Camp opposition was predictable. The dogmatic justifications they would offer for their opposition were also predictable, and revealed their ignorance of the facts. In 1999, Kaohsiung Harbor was in its heyday. It was the number three ranked container port in the world. But eight long years of Closed Door Policy under the Democratic Progressive Party dropped its ranking to number ten. Its status as an entrepot was gradually replaced by Mainland ports that were serving the factory of the world. Think for a minute. Was domestic capital really lining up all these years to invest in Kaohsiung? Had there been a surfeit of containers transiting the port, would Kaohsiung Harbor have been reduced to its current condition? The Green Camp legislators' hysteria about a "crowding out" effect is empty rhetoric. If anything, it turns the truth on its head.

Allegations about "endangering national security" are worse than alarmist. They expose how ignorant and out of touch the Green Camp legislators are about trade in the modern age. Three Mainland enterprises investing a total of four billion dollars is a pittance. It accounts for a mere 30% of the equity in Yangming Marine's Kao Ming Container Terminal Corp. (KMCT). Yangming retains overwhelming control. Moreover, KMCT has another shareholder, the U.S. Container Terminal Corporation. The project is a "Taiwan/Mainland/US joint venture." Where exactly is the "national security threat?" Over the past thirty years, Taiwan businesses have invested nearly nine trillion NT dollars in the Mainland. They have contributed to the Mainland's rapid economic rise. Today, a mere 4.5 billion in Mainland capital is coming to Taiwan. Isn't it the height of absurdity to insist that this would endanger the security of Taiwan?

The significance of the Mainland's 30% share does not actually lie in the four billion capital investment. Its significance lies in cooperation established between the two sides. Originally three Mainland enterprises wanted a 60% share in the company. But the government was cautious. It only allowed Yangming to sell a 30% share. The main reason was that many people still harbor deep-seated fears of Communism. In fact, modern multinational shipping companies use cross-shareholdings to share in each other's strongholds, or to enhance mutual cooperation. This is a common strategy when forming alliances. This was one reason Yangming first allowed U.S. terminal companies to buy in. After the three Mainland enterprises invested in the KMCT project, its vessels were granted preferential treament when transiting the Port of Kaohsiung. This enhances throughput for Kaohsiung Harbor. Conversely, Yang Ming Marine Transport's vessels enjoy preferential treatment when transiting Mainland ports. From a business perspective, this a clear case of win/win. But if one dwells on political confrontation, then the problem is insoluble.

DPP legislators voiced concerns about the inflow of Mainland capital. Ironically the Green Camp ruled Kaohsiung City Government was welcoming the investments with open arms. It was convinced that the investments would boost Kaohsiung's economy. Contrast the two mindsets. This is the difference between theory and practice. This is the difference between groundless paranoia and substantive interests. The distinction could not be clearer.

Kaohsiung is a Green Camp stronghold. The Kaohsiung City Government is fully aware that the DPP leadership has long been "anti-China." The Kaohsiung City Government also prefers to sing a different tune than the ruling Kuomintang government. But years of recession has left Kaohsiung Harbor in serious decline. It must abandon its complacent and reactionary ideology. It must seize all opportunities for development. Kaohsiung Harbor has become increasingly marginalized. Restoring its former status will not be easy. As the city government sees it, Mainland enterprises want to invest in its harbors. How can it refuse? How can Kaohsiung Harbor become competitive again? How can become an international port again? Besides, the Ma administration is working to turn Kaohsiung into a "showcase for free trade." Will Kaohsiung cling to its fears of Communism? Will it cling to rigid "anti-China' thinking? Will it veto Mainland capital investments? If so, then will not pass muster as a "free economy." It will never become a showcase for free trade.

As we can see, the Kaohsiung City Government is concerned about economic development. It is under pressure from hard economic reality. It welcomes Mainland capital. The DPP leadership talks about reforming its Mainland policy. But it simultaneously says no to anything and everything connected to Mainland China. By contrast, the Kaohsiung City Government's pragmatism deserves applause. At least it is concerned about the local economy and the people's livelihood. The DPP leadership on the other hand, cannot get past political sloganeering. This is truly sad.

Nine trillon dollars in capital from Taiwan has flowed onto the Mainland. Today, a mere four billion from the Mainland is being invested in public construction on Taiwan. Such a turning point is hardly worth celebrating. But neither do we need to become alarmed. We need to reflect. Taiwan has been undergong globalization for decades. Why is this final step taking so long? Why are opponents still so self-righteous?

陸資投資高雄港會否危及台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.22 03:13 am

投審會近日審核通過中遠太平洋、中海碼頭和中國招商局等三家陸資企業投資四十億，參與台灣陽明海運在高雄港的第六貨櫃碼頭開發計畫。民進黨立委隨即表示反對，認為開放陸資不僅排擠國內投資，更將危及國家安全，並要求經濟部應即刻否決此案。

綠營的反對不難想見，但其所持理由不僅僵固依舊，且昧於事實。高雄港在全盛的一九九九年，是世界運轉排名第三的貨櫃港；在民進黨執政的八年鎖國期間，卻一蹶不振跌到十名之外，轉口地位漸被成為世界工廠的大陸港口取代。試想，這些年若有國內資金願意投資擴建，若有充裕的貨櫃前來彎靠，高雄港何致淪落至此？因此，綠委所謂「排擠效應」，完全是「買空賣空」的唱腔，甚至是顛倒是非。

至於「危及國家安全」的說法，則不僅危言聳聽，也暴露了對現代貿易知識的欠缺與落伍。三家陸企合計出資四十億元，金額其實不多，僅占陽明海運旗下「高明貨櫃碼頭公司」股分的三成，陽明對該公司仍擁有絕對的主導權。更何況，高明碼頭公司有另一成股分由美國貨櫃碼頭公司持有；這是一家「台／陸／美」合資的企業，所謂「國安威脅」從何而來？過去卅年，台商在大陸各行各業投入了將近九兆台幣的資金，幫助了中國經濟的快速成長；而如今不過是四十五億陸資來台，就說會危及台灣安全，豈不荒謬？

事實上，這三成的陸資入股，主要意義不在其四十億資金的投入，而在雙方合作關係的建立。最初三家陸企希望擁有六成的股權，但政府基於審慎原則，僅核准陽明轉讓三成股權；主要原因，就是鑑於許多國人「恐共情結」依舊很深。事實上，現代跨國航運公司透過交叉持股的方式，來分享彼此的據點，或提高彼此的互補合作，是常見的聯盟策略；先前陽明對美國碼頭公司出釋股權，目的也在於此。而三家陸企投資「高明碼頭」後，其旗下船隻可優先彎靠高雄港，有助提高高雄港的吞吐量；相對的，陽明海運旗下船隻利用陸企在大陸的碼頭也更加便利。就商業而言，這是兩相互利之事；但如果要以政治相對論思考，只能無解。

值得玩味的是，就在民進黨立委對陸資大表疑慮的同時，綠營執政的高雄市政府卻對這項投資案表示歡迎與支持，認為有助於提升高雄的經濟動能與效能。兩相對照，理論與實際之差、務虛與務實之別，立刻清濁分明。

作為綠營基本盤的重鎮所在，高雄市政府當然不可能不知道民進黨中央一向的政策是「反中」，同時也要和國民黨政府唱反調。然而，在歷經那麼多年的衰退之後，高雄港風華凋萎，如果再不拋棄故步自封的意識形態，把握發展契機，高雄港日漸邊緣化的命運即再難挽回。從高雄市府的立場看，若連陸企投資碼頭都不能接受，高雄港要如何成為一個有競爭力、有企圖心的國際港灣？更何況，馬政府正在努力規劃高雄成為一個「自由經濟示範區」，高雄市若還抱持「恐共」、「反中」的僵固思維否決陸資投入，這「自由經濟」的第一關就過不了，又如何能成為什麼「示範」？

從此看，高雄市府因經濟發展的現實壓力，而對陸資表示歡迎；相形之下，民進黨中央一方面不斷聲稱大陸政策需要調整，一方面卻又拆不掉其「逢中必反」的裹腳布。兩相比較，高雄市府的務實選擇毋寧更值得讚揚，因為這至少包含了以「在地經濟民生為先」的用心；而民進黨中央卻仍跳不出自己的政治口號，才是可悲。

在九兆台資流向大陸之後，今天才有四十億陸資投入台灣的公共建設，這個轉捩點，其實不值得歡慶，也不必大驚失色。值得大家反思的是，台灣全球化的腳步已經走了幾十年，為什麼最後這一步的開放卻遲疑了那麼久？而這些反對雜音至今仍那麼自以為是的理直氣壯？