Many heads of conglomerates have been clamoring of late for the early establishment of direct transport, trade and postal links with China. This, they argue, is in the interests of the economy and of the welfare of the people. More often than not, however, they are merely pursuing their own interests by portraying them as the interests of the people.
In the opinion of Kao Ching-yuan (
I have some questions about this. Who stands to benefit from lower business costs? Do they benefit a company's employees, national security or the local community?
Even the most basic English-language management textbooks will tell you that the boss is not the only interested party in a company. There are also the workers, consumers, suppliers, financial institutions, the media, community groups and the government. They are all interested parties.
Taiwan's corporate management class now only cares about one thing, however -- profits. The interests of the other parties must therefore be equated with the company's interests by the argument that, if the company makes money, everyone will benefit. Hence the logic: "With-out direct links, businesses will lose their competitiveness and everyone will have to live miserable lives in the future."
This logic equates the voices of all other interested parties with the opinions of managers, and thereby with the opinions of corporate shareholders. Every day, we see business profit and loss reports in the newspapers. If a company profits, that means business is stable. If it suffers losses, its share price goes down. Amid the vagaries of that mechanism, the people's interests are narrowly interpreted as financial benefits.
So when we see news that Tainan Spinning Co's (台南紡織) Vietnam factory is making healthy profits and the company's share price is rising, we don't bother to consider whether such profits actually benefit all interested parties.
According to my information, the factory in question has badly violated the overtime work provisions of Vietnam's labor law by requiring employees to work every day -- without even a single day off -- for an entire month.
What's more, the workers never received double pay as required by the regulations for work carried out on holidays.
Not only that, but when the company calculates overtime pay, it rounds off the figures to the nearest thousand dong less, stealing the "change" from each employee's paycheck.
Under such circumstances, can company profits be equated with the interests of the Taiwan-ese people? Will Taiwan's image as a country that respects human rights receive a boost from Uni-President's profitability?
In the media reports, the voice of the other interested parties are reduced to "good profit margins and strong share prices."
A similar logic is also being applied to the demands that the government authorize private groups to negotiate direct links with Beijing. But how about national security and labor interests? Why should we let these business people negotiate matters that involve the interests of the entire people? The masters of industry have had their say.
What we need now are the voices of other parties -- not private interests spun as the interests of the people.
Wang Hong-zen is an assistant professor at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers