APART FROM CHANGING the form of political power, most nations created in modern times have relied on science and technology for their smooth development. There are, of course, no major differences between antiquity and modernity when it comes to the fundamental logic of power, but the way power and technology interact decides the quality and ultimate fate of the development of modern nations. Looking at today's Taiwan, it will be impossible for any group of technology companies to avoid interference from political authority.
Traditionally, the KMT government has had one praiseworthy approach: they knew to develop technology education and promote technological industries. But that was all. They often routinely intervened in the technological environment, causing the expert competition between technology enterprises to become a culture of techno-political factions. Because of this, the team of technical experts that was supposed to choose the location of the Tainan Science-based Industrial Park (
Since the battle for the high-speed railway is another political battle, the experts will not be able to get a say in its political complexities. It is very unfortunate that the investment in these two technological undertakings, because of insufficient warning and bad communication, have been blended together. Looking carefully at the conflict between the two, the political strength expended far exceeds the technical issues, creating a situation where one of the few high-speed railways in the world runs through an industrial park. Only at its final stages is the issue of expertise forced to the surface. And not knowing what to do, it seems decision makers have to helplessly return to a traditional political solution.
The failure of the interactive model between power and technology may not be confined to the Tainan industrial park issue. The fourth nuclear plant and even the deeper-rooted so-called Tai Power culture and CPC culture reflect the political dominance of some groups of technology enterprises. They all compete with their praise of the political authority to win the power to direct technology policies, while they neglect stringent requirements for expertise. With a techno-political situation where everyone tries to win the right to set the standard, it becomes very difficult to make superior technology decisions. This leads not only to the loss of control of technological development, but also to the natural corruption of elite technology enterprises.
Using the US development of fighter planes as an example, the US government always commissions two companies for simultaneous development. Because of this, technological agencies are competing in specialized research to surpass other agencies, obtain more research funds and win academic reputation. As a result, successful research can reach the highest international standards. Each technological group can maintain vital development in its area of expertise. Politicians can become corrupt, and technological groups can not avoid this issue. If we believe that the democratic competition between political parties can prevent the corruption of the political elite, then we should understand that fair and expert competition between technology enterprises is the only way to avoid the corruption of the technological elite.
Huang Gwo-jiunn is a senior lecturer at the University of Wales, UK. Hwang Chi-chuan is a professor in the department of engineering science, National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs