Amid fierce competition to develop Chinese-language content for the Internet, what is the appropriate role of Taiwan's government? Many government bodies have already delegated Internet resources through administrative authority and legislation. As a result, what was once free access to the Internet is becoming increasingly more expensive. Internet users' interests have been short changed. The development of the Internet in Taiwan is increasingly being permeated by corruption. In light of this, a "Basic Internet Law" is needed to protect the public's fundamental rights and privileges.
The Directorate General of Telecommunications denies people the right to freely operate private service telecommunications networks (PSTN) by requiring steep minimum qualifications and inviting "experts" to evaluate applicants' qualifications. But the amount of start-up capital needed and a reasonable way to manage a PSTN are issues to be decided by the market, rather than the so-called experts.
Telecommunications technology develops at a rapid rate. As a result, the actual start-up capital needed to operate a PSTN is declining. Under the circumstances, what the government must do is nurture fair competition, rather than having the existing major players continue monopolizing the industry.
The Electronic Signature Act deprives people of the right to serve as authorities capable of certifying electronic signatures by requiring government approval of the authorities' and regulation of their business operations. The only commodity sold by these authorities is public trust. Public trust accumulates over time, rather than through government approval. Plus, people are typically distrustful of the government in most democratic countries. How then can the government help a certified authority win public trust? This exercise of government power only results in market monopolies.
Some foreign experts have pointed out that, as a result of the rapid change in the Internet industry, the government is neither capable nor required to set any policies for the industry. However, the Industrial Development Bureau has recently published an Internet industry policy in which it listed security certification as a key issue. Internet security is a matter to be handled by the Internet users themselves. No one wants to have his or her personal information misappropriated on the Internet. This need to safeguard information would naturally lead to a new industry to foster Internet security.
The way people intrude on other people's information over the Internet is constantly changing. Under the circumstances, a formal security standard would accomplish nothing except informing the would-be intruders of how to outsmart the security system. A small minority of scholars prefers a security certification system under which they themselves would serve as certification authorities. Thereby, in the days to come, they would be able to live in luxury by simply stamping their approval on a daily basis. The bureau's establishment of a certification system is due to the influence of conglomerates interested in reaping profits from the system.
More than 30 years ago, Taiwanese and Indians were the two largest ethnic groups in America's information industry. Now, Taiwan's information hardware industry and India's information software industry both play extremely important roles worldwide.
However, Taiwan's software industry has failed to take flight. Why couldn't we catch up with India? Because Taiwan's government allowed a monopoly of the software industry. The principle of fair competition was seriously breached because government contracts were monopolized and market competition suppressed. How then can we allow monopolies to exist in the Internet industry?
The promulgation of an "Internet Basic Law" would primarily eliminate the existing monopolies and prevent the emergence of new ones.
Y. G. Tang is a professor of computer science and information at National Taiwan University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath