This newspaper put forward a justly damning commentary yesterday on the US$13 billion High-Speed Railway's current legal dispute (editorial, Page 8, Jan. 30). Thankfully, because the editorial space allows for only 600 words, it left me with plenty to say on why the Europeans lost the core contract to the Japanese, as well as room to offer a different perspective on what impact the dispute will have on Taiwan's international reputation.
But first, let's clear one thing up. There's a difference between the Western community and the international community. What often goes overlooked in an issue as important as the awarding of Taiwan's most expensive infrastructure project is WHOSE rules were being followed: Western or Eastern? (Don't give me that blather about the twain having met.)
Legally, it would appear that the Taiwan High-Speed Railway Corp (THSRC) was wrong to switch from the Eurotrain to the Shinkansen consortium. But only Taiwan's hopelessly underqualified legal system can actually answer this. The question that really begs asking was whether the THSRC was ethically wrong in its decision. And that depends entirely on where you are coming from. But you can be sure the Taiwanese and Japanese negotiators and executives involved in the switch aren't losing any sleep over what they did. It's simply the way business gets done in this part of the world.
Let's come back later to why this is so. First we need to understand exactly what the Europeans had going against them.
The essentials
Of course, I cannot speak for the THSRC's motives in deciding to go with the Japanese, after stringing the Europeans along for two years. But I can speculate on what I would have done had I been in THSRC boss Nita Ing's
First, I would have realized that there is little or no difference between the quality of the two consortia as far as my future customers are concerned. No one in Taiwan is going to get on the bullet train one day and say, "But Mommy, you promised we could ride in an Anglo-French carriage pulled by a German train."
Second, I would have looked at who is going to give me the better financing deal, because that is the second of my two primary responsibilities as the project's main contractor -- sharing the cost burden (the first being ensuring the line's safety.)
Third, and this would probably have been the clincher, I would have thought to myself, "If we get into the kind of trouble which creates cost overruns and deadline delays -- as we inevitably will -- who do I want to be working with in resolving the disputes?"
If I was still wavering at this stage, the issue would have been decided if I had received a note from the big building on Kaitakelan Boulevard saying, "The Japanese government wants to include us within their `strategic defense area;' Europe just recently rolled out the red carpet for Jiang Zemin. And anyway, we just gave Airbus a nice fat contract over Boeing. Do I need to make myself clearer?"
The `Asian' way
Admittedly, the justification that the THSRC has given for its decision is not even worth dignifying with a response, which is why I'm almost surprised the Europeans went ahead with the request for an injunction against THSRC and Shinkansen. A document signed by members representing the corporation before it was actually incorporated isn't binding? Puh-lease. But that should tell you something right there: in Taiwan, the more ridiculous the line, the more unlikely it is that you have a chance of defeating it in court. It's an excuse, for heaven's sake, not an argument.
RSS