Thursday's sweep on United Microelectronics Corp (UMC, 聯電), rather than being a rushed operation, was part of an investigation in which evidence had been collected over the last year: The investigation commenced following a tip-off that UMC was providing personnel and technology to "nurture" the Chinese company He Jian Technology (Suzhou) (和艦), behavior deemed to be against the interests of shareholders and to constitute a breach of trust. Regardless, revelations of the investigation proved to be somewhat explosive, and talk, particularly in the high-tech world, came thick and fast.
Although not everyone in the industry was implicated, it did throw up questions of the authorities' playing at being "economic police" and their interference with the operation of business, and there were even questions regarding the encroachment on human rights and freedom. In addition, as soon as the situation was given a political bent, there were also concerns about whether this might endanger the hard-earned atmosphere of conciliation between the parties.
Looking through the newspapers the day after the news broke, one could clearly discern two camps taking shape: Those that applauded the investigation, and those that slammed it. Putting aside for a minute the rather prickly topics of the legality of the investigation, or whether or not it does in fact encroach on human rights or liberty, we can say, purely from the perspective of investments in industry within a free, democratic society, the more freedom there is, and the more developed the market, all the government can really do is protect industrial rights and encourage innovation, and provide a fair, just, secure environment in which people can have a high quality of life and which attracts others from afar. Therefore, if Taiwan is a free, democratic society advocating a free market, the government truly has no business interfering in business, let alone searching the offices of companies.
This having been said, everyone is quite aware that, even now, a lot of government policy in Taiwan is quite interventionist. Naturally, if the majority of people agreed with this, there wouldn't be a problem, but many are, in fact, doubtful. This is especially true regarding policies giving preferential treatment, such as tax breaks or tax exemptions, to certain industries. The provision of government perks for research and development in technology because of its inherent "utility" also has its critics.
Regardless, it cannot be denied that in Taiwan, some industries and some companies enjoy public (all the people's) resources. Since this is so, it only seems reasonable that the government also poses demands. If we accept this, then demands such as whether manufacturers should be allowed to freely transfer technology become a matter of reasonable interference. Not long ago, Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) at a public event questioned Taiwan's high-tech industries' return on investment by bringing up the issue of whether the government should support industry. That was just another expression of this issue.
What we should ask is this: Who is it that is asking for these policies that reward companies and offer them preferential treatment? If the government were to treat all industries fairly and not offer industry any kind of preferential treatment, then industry circles could tell the government to stay away. Thus, given today's drive toward globalization, maybe it is time for companies to stand up and say "No!" to the government, ie, say that they do not want any preferential treatment or help.
In fact, if UMC really did use He Jian to move funds around, then this is also a matter of people finding ways of getting around government policies. Outsiders should not get involved, nor should they engage in political mudslinging.
It is worth noting that if all the world's nations were liberal democracies, then the best policy would be one of full deregulation, free trade and free investment. But any communist and totalitarian society should be discussed separately, because in such a system there is no free market.
Wu Hui-lin is a research fellow at the Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Perry Svennson and Paul Cooper
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