In any democratic country, launching a public policy has never been an easy job. The authorities need to move slowly, solicit stakeholders' input at every stage and pay careful attention to public interest, aiming at making their concerns about the prospective policy all the more remarkable.
The backing-off by financial regulators last week from considering a proposal for splitting the single stock-trading session into two -- one in the morning and the other in the afternoon -- was an example of not only how reckless financial regulators are in their approach, but also how there seem to be less and less debate over public policy these days.
The whole fiasco started with a poll conducted by the Taiwan Securities Association (
The proposal to extend trading hours was a simple matter of technical adjustment, but it deserved a good discussion over what impact it could have on local capital markets, on the process of stock delivery and on the ceiling of daily stock movements. However, brokerage workers' immediate opposition to the proposal and their threats to stage protests and mass rallies forced financial regulators to abandon their plan on Thursday, leaving no real and constructive room for public discussion.
The local bourse wasn't always restricted to a single trading session. In 1962 when the Taiwan Stock Exchange opened, it adopted a system of two stock-trading sessions on weekdays and only the morning session on Saturdays. It continued this system for almost two decades through 1984. In July 1984, the regulators decided to pursue a single-trading-session system between 9pm and noon daily, and extended the hours to 1:30am in 2001 after the nation began a new working-week system (Saturday off every other week).
Although local investors and securities companies said they are accustomed to four-and-a-half-hour sessions and rejected the change, if trading hours were adjustable in the past for various reasons, what's the reason now that they cannot be changed back? That's debate No. 1.
Secondly, financial regulators claimed that a longer session would generate more turnover. Are trading hours really a matter influencing stock turnover? That's debate No. 2.
Taiwan's stock market is known for being dominated by retail investors, who complained that extended trading hours would affect their living habits, as they might have to spend more time paying attention to stocks and this would result in less productivity in their own businesses. But if the government really meant to encourage more participation by institutional investors who are better equipped to make investment decisions for retail punters such as housewives and retired citizens, isn't it true that extended trading hours could be the only effective way to force retail investors into seeking the advice of institutional investors? This is debate No. 3.
Lastly, financial regulators said the purpose of extending trading hours was aimed at connecting with international stock markets and to compete with exchanges in countries such as Japan or Hong Kong, where there are two trading sessions daily. Shouldn't we ask whether the development of the local stock market is more relevant to our economy, the governance of listed companies and stock market regulations, than the simple issue of trading hours?
If the market is well developed, foreign investors would flood in even if investors are allowed to trade just one hour a day.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry