Unable to solve the enduring mystery of why Taiwan does not attract tourists in the desired numbers (despite the collective screams of all of us knowledgeable long-term foreigners watching the government flail uselessly at the problem), policymakers have decided to establish a Taiwan Tourism Institute (台灣觀光研訓院), which was inaugurated last week to great fanfare and almost certain futility.
Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰), speaking at the opening ceremony for the institute, said that “we hope that the Taiwan Tourism Institute could function like ITRI [Industrial Technology Research Institute] and develop Taiwan’s tourism industry.” The chip industry dates back to the 1960s, but got its great boost when Morris Chang (張忠謀) arrived from abroad, took over ITRI and started Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) in 1987. I doubt, however, that the Taiwan Tourism Institute will be turned over to a similarly knowledgeable and energetic foreign expert.
This paper reported that at the ceremony Taiwan Tourism Institute chairperson Winston Shen (沈方正) was asked about Taiwan’s high accommodation costs, and replied that the issue was caused by a lack of communication between hoteliers and customers. You know, that communication problem wherein visitors say “we’d like at least basic services for our money” and hoteliers respond “Sorry, I can’t hear you.”
Photo: Huang Ming-tang, Taipei Times
Snark aside, Taiwan enjoyed visits from 8.57 million tourists last year. The Philippines saw 6.5 million tourist arrivals last year, a figure the government there considers low. By contrast Vietnam saw 12.3 million in the first six months of this year. Malaysia put down similarly large numbers through May, while the Thai juggernaut continues to roll over most of its regional competitors with over 32 million arrivals last year.
Many of us have written on the failure to properly promote Taiwan’s mountains, its world-class cycling and its historical and prehistorical sites. The government’s promotion of food tourism is a running joke with foreigners (sorry, but Vietnam and Thailand are light-years better). But there are many areas where Taiwan could emulate its southeast Asian counterparts.
MEDICAL TOURISM
Photo courtesy of the Changhua County Government
Notably, Thailand and Malaysia are both globally important medical tourism destinations. In 2023, Thailand generated over US$2.5 billion from medical tourism. Compare that to Taiwan’s National Health Insurance System budget for this year, which reached NT$1 trillion or US$31.5 billion.
Taiwan could probably post medical tourism numbers comparable to Thailand’s, but the unwillingess of the legislature to tax and fund expansion of the medical system by paying staff higher salaries and building slack infrastructure is a powerful constraint on development of robust medical tourism.
The government allots hospital beds and other resources based on population, leaving the system without slack resources such as empty wards and underworked doctors and nurses that could service foreigners. Medical tourism could help fund the medical system, which has been in a state of chronic financial crisis. A lump of slack medical resources will also come in useful in an invasion or attack scenario. Will the new institute be given the powers to address this issue?
Photo courtesy of Ho Chang-ying
MIGRANT LABOR
Chairman Shen did allude to the global issue of staffing for tourist hotels. Last year the government announced plans to introduce more migrant workers into the hospitality industry, which is short thousands of workers. Once again, I must point out that Taiwan hosts thousands of foreign spouses who cannot legally work (but often do anyway), and tens of thousands of runaway migrant workers holding “illegal” jobs, especially in the services and agriculture, who could be brought back into the formal labor system. Will the new institute have the authority to address these issues?
A critical issue in the employment of migrant labor is that its programmatic assumptions are bogus. Policies assume that there is enough labor, that migrant workers are displacing local workers and that migrant workers are temporary solutions, all false. The government, for example, last year proposed that in order to hire one additional migrant worker over the allocated quota, businesses must increase the monthly salary of a local worker by NT$2,000 and limit such hires to under 10 percent of their workforce. The mindset of a bygone era is easy to see.
Consider a typical small hotel. The managers might need half a dozen or more illegal cleaning ladies, against an administrative staff of similar size. Illegal workers could constitute a third to half or more of the workforce. How could migrant workers be held to a quota, especially with a small staff where “10 percent” would be one or two workers? Consider other businesses whose size makes quotas ridiculous, such as a small souvenir shop, local restaurant or B&B, where one or two staff are needed (but can’t be found) to serve under one owner/manager. Will the new tourism institute be given the power to address these issues in a meaningful way, such as yanking migrant labor out of the hands of private brokers into a government labor pool?
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Last week I spent a few days in the Philippine resort area of Boracay. The beach is surpassingly lovely. More practically, water activities such as recreational boating and kite-surfing are strictly regulated and kept well away from the beach, unlike the comparable Taiwan resort area of Kenting. The atmosphere generally surprises newcomers expecting a frenetic overdeveloped mess. Instead, it is more of a chill family experience. The taxis in the main tourist area are electric, and access to the island is restricted.
It is probably already too late for Kenting, but there are excellent beaches on the east side of the country that could be developed in this way. Some would need permanent safety personnel (hello migrant workers!). Development like the mess slowly growing around the lovely and unique bay off Shanyuan (杉原灣)/Funafudak in Taitung would have to be curbed.
Mountain areas could be similarly developed, both for trekking and for wildlife tourism. Will the new tourism institute be given the authority to suppress development when necessary to preserve sites, and to develop currently neglected sites? To bring in brains, money and labor?
Premier Cho’s comparison of the tourism institute to ITRI was glib, but it hints at the kind of power any tourism body would need to meaningfully increase tourist arrivals. For example, in the 1970s ITRI executed a tech transfer agreement with Philips and then built a 3-inch wafer fab. In the 1980s ITRI spun off major chip makers United Microelectronics and Taiwan Semiconductor. It also found the the brains and money to support efforts in everything from optoelectronics and CNC machining to bicycles.
Will the institute be given such powers and resources, and think in similarly bold ways? Or will it simply degenerate into another subsidy for big hotels and tour agencies, preserving the current systemic failure?
I think we all know what the answer to those questions is.
Notes from Central Taiwan is a column written by long-term resident Michael Turton, who provides incisive commentary informed by three decades of living in and writing about his adoptive country. The views expressed here are his own.
Unable to solve the enduring mystery of why Taiwan does not attract tourists in the desired numbers (despite the collective screams of all of us knowledgeable long-term foreigners watching the government flail uselessly at the problem), policymakers have decided to establish a Taiwan Tourism Institute (台灣觀光研訓院), which was inaugurated last week to great fanfare and almost certain futility. Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰), speaking at the opening ceremony for the institute, said that “we hope that the Taiwan Tourism Institute could function like ITRI [Industrial Technology Research Institute] and develop Taiwan’s tourism industry.” The chip industry dates back to the 1960s, but
For anyone unfamiliar with a ballet gala, Wang Tzer-shing (王澤馨) has a ready comparison. “Imagine in the culinary world, it would be like 10 Michelin-starred chefs bringing each a signature dish to the table,” she said. On Sunday, Art Wave’s 17th Ballet Star Gala gathers 10 world-class dancers performing 13 works in a single afternoon, offering Taiwanese audiences a rare chance to experience ballet’s remarkable range. Assembling this year’s gala in a record six weeks, Wang curated a program spanning classical, neoclassical and contemporary ballet. It includes five Taiwanese premieres, two Asian premieres and two world premieres. Yet, she refuses to single
July 27 to Aug. 2 Chiang A-hsin’s (姜阿新) father did not want him to work. As one of the wealthiest families in the Hsinchu area, the Chiangs owned enough property and other assets to live comfortably, and his father reportedly spent much of his time smoking opium. Whenever Chiang came up with a business idea, his father rejected it. “He wanted me to be like him, just sit back and enjoy life. This pained me very much,” he later told his son-in-law, Liao Pan-yun (廖潘運), who wrote about his family in The Days of Golden
“What year is it?” famously yells the Robin Williams character in the 1995 film Jumanji. He could well be talking about food scandals in Taiwan. Is it 2008, with tainted milk powder coming in from the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? Or 2013, with its revelations that most rice noodles in Taiwan aren’t really made of rice starch? Or maybe 2013, with yet another cooking oil scandal? Is it 2011, bringing us the Great Plasticizer Scandal, where 168 companies pulled their drink products from the market over a plasticizer appearing in beverages, and stories circulated of PRC shippers sending plasticizer-tainted drinks
RSS