Firstly of all, for most developing countries, the tariffs imposed on imports are one of their main financial sources. At this moment, for supporting the continuing output of Taiwanese Government, it become vital for us to implement our policy of enlarging internal trade.
Secondly, for some luxury items, governments may also impose higher tariffs on them, in order to decrease the volumes of domestic consumption.
Whilst, the most important point for tariffs is to protect domestic protection and to promote foreign direct investment. For instance, before enjoying the national treatment provided by Art. III of the GATT 1994, Member are free to impose tariffs on imported products, so long as the measures involved do not violate the commits they made.
Furthermore, the main cause of ITA litigation between the US, Japan, and Taiwan, on the one hand, and the EC, on the other hand, is due to the higher tariffs imposed on the newly innovating products containing IT elements. Whether the EC is bound for providing zero tariffs for these new products containing IT elements appearing has been the main issue between parties. However, even the final result is that the EC has to modify its measures to comply with ITA, a lot of plants producing those new products have moved to the Eastern Europe, and they will not move back to Taiwan and the other countries anymore, due to the concerns of manufacturing costs they have spent. Therefore, by changing Tariffs, the EC has not only gain lots of foreign direct investments from Taiwan, but it has also increased a lot of new working opportunities by attracting a lot of new foreign plants.
Until now, you may wonder why Taiwan still have to take an action against the EC before the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO, since those we lost would not come back again. The reasons I believe is that we cannot stand the same situation will occur in the future. Unlike the other countries, IT industry is our main sector. It is not easy to develop a newly profitable sector in the short time, nor is it possible to stand the further losses of jobs and investments by being imposed higher tariffs again, due to the same cause.
2009年5月17日 星期日
Trade Freedom, the consumer’s right to know, the protection of public health, and the protection of domestic agriculture industry
When discussing the differences of Maximum Residue Limits (referred to “MRLs”) imposed on between imported and domestic agricultural products, it is vital to point out the main points we need take into account, before entering into the substantive discussions.
Firstly, The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (hereinafter referred to as “Taiwan”), as a Member of WTO, has to eliminate the non-tariff barriers, so long as these actions do not endanger the other important rights of our nationals.
However, our nationals also have the right to know what exactly they eat, especially some journals had pointed out the differences of Maximum Residue Limits imposed on agrcultural products between importers and domestic producers.
Furthermore, the right to know also closely relates to the protection of consumer’s health. Consumers have the right to decide the merits and demerits of products they purchase, and in this regard, they need information to determine, in order to materialize the right to decide.
Nevertheless, even consumers have the right to decide what product they want to purchase; our government also has the obligation to study the maximum residue limits, in order to protect public health. When a new imported product using a new pharmaceutical our domestic farmers have never utilized on our own products, the government need to add this new source of residue into the maximum and inevitably have to decrease the original quota of the same pharmaceutical our domestic producers can legally use. On the one hand, as a consumer, a new products appearing on the market can increase the list of choices, on the other hand, as a domestic farmer, the difficulty they face is further, since the maximum amount of pharmaceutical they can use become less. This will effectively undermine the competitiveness of our domestic agriculture industry.
The reasons of protecting our domestic agriculture industry cannot be simply evaluated, with an economic point of view. In contrary, the safety of food supply also need to concern. In the oncoming age of decreasing global trade, it is also necessary to maintain the specific proportion of domestic food supply, in order to avoid overly dependence on imports. Also, agriculture industry plays a role as a symbol of cultural inheritance. How can we forget where we are coming from? Agriculture, as a traditional way of life, also embeds the historical stories that had ever happened on our land in the past.
Hence, a balance has to seek between the freedom of trade, on the one hand, and the other rights of domestic nationals, on the other hand. Currently, we merely enact roughly 1000 MRLs, which are significantly less than the other developed countries. It has not only effectively formed non-tariff barrier for importers, since once there is no MRL for the permitting use on one specific imported product, the result is that this new product would be rejected in our customs, but it also deprive consumers of the rights to choose the new products on our market.
Well, an idea of seeking a balance sounds great, but how? One may suggest adopting the standards enacted by the Codex of the United Nation, because this standard is prevailing and so loose that no county’s importers would be easily blocked by this standard. Utilizing a global standard of trade has been a long dream for trade liberalists. Whilst, although adopting the Codex’s standards can be assumed to fit the requirement of SPS Agreement, it may also impair the protection of domestic public health, in particular the standards of Codex are designed for the globally average circumstances without concerning each Member own situation. Thus, here, I suggest our government to adopt the impermanent standards of 0.01 ppm, like the EC and Japan. At least, it is not only so loose as the standards of Codex, but it also slightly eliminates the current strict standards that no residue is permitted.
Firstly, The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (hereinafter referred to as “Taiwan”), as a Member of WTO, has to eliminate the non-tariff barriers, so long as these actions do not endanger the other important rights of our nationals.
However, our nationals also have the right to know what exactly they eat, especially some journals had pointed out the differences of Maximum Residue Limits imposed on agrcultural products between importers and domestic producers.
Furthermore, the right to know also closely relates to the protection of consumer’s health. Consumers have the right to decide the merits and demerits of products they purchase, and in this regard, they need information to determine, in order to materialize the right to decide.
Nevertheless, even consumers have the right to decide what product they want to purchase; our government also has the obligation to study the maximum residue limits, in order to protect public health. When a new imported product using a new pharmaceutical our domestic farmers have never utilized on our own products, the government need to add this new source of residue into the maximum and inevitably have to decrease the original quota of the same pharmaceutical our domestic producers can legally use. On the one hand, as a consumer, a new products appearing on the market can increase the list of choices, on the other hand, as a domestic farmer, the difficulty they face is further, since the maximum amount of pharmaceutical they can use become less. This will effectively undermine the competitiveness of our domestic agriculture industry.
The reasons of protecting our domestic agriculture industry cannot be simply evaluated, with an economic point of view. In contrary, the safety of food supply also need to concern. In the oncoming age of decreasing global trade, it is also necessary to maintain the specific proportion of domestic food supply, in order to avoid overly dependence on imports. Also, agriculture industry plays a role as a symbol of cultural inheritance. How can we forget where we are coming from? Agriculture, as a traditional way of life, also embeds the historical stories that had ever happened on our land in the past.
Hence, a balance has to seek between the freedom of trade, on the one hand, and the other rights of domestic nationals, on the other hand. Currently, we merely enact roughly 1000 MRLs, which are significantly less than the other developed countries. It has not only effectively formed non-tariff barrier for importers, since once there is no MRL for the permitting use on one specific imported product, the result is that this new product would be rejected in our customs, but it also deprive consumers of the rights to choose the new products on our market.
Well, an idea of seeking a balance sounds great, but how? One may suggest adopting the standards enacted by the Codex of the United Nation, because this standard is prevailing and so loose that no county’s importers would be easily blocked by this standard. Utilizing a global standard of trade has been a long dream for trade liberalists. Whilst, although adopting the Codex’s standards can be assumed to fit the requirement of SPS Agreement, it may also impair the protection of domestic public health, in particular the standards of Codex are designed for the globally average circumstances without concerning each Member own situation. Thus, here, I suggest our government to adopt the impermanent standards of 0.01 ppm, like the EC and Japan. At least, it is not only so loose as the standards of Codex, but it also slightly eliminates the current strict standards that no residue is permitted.
2009年5月16日 星期六
Government Procurement Agreement Has Been Aproved By Our Congress
Despite a bit delay of passing government procurement agreement, just two days before, Taiwanese Congress has approved this agreement.
From now, a further step of trade liberalization has been done in Taiwan,
whilst, we may wonder how to enlarge our internal trade
by liberalizing the field of government procurement at the same time,
especially at the age of global financial crisis.
From now, a further step of trade liberalization has been done in Taiwan,
whilst, we may wonder how to enlarge our internal trade
by liberalizing the field of government procurement at the same time,
especially at the age of global financial crisis.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)