Shortly before midnight on Friday, the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp (THSRC,
Despite such good news, the row over the rail company's latest injection of funds from two government-funded organizations -- the China Technical Consultants Incorporated Foundation (
Critics argued that the government's financial intervention goes against a legislative resolution passed earlier to limit the government's stake in the rail company via state-owned enterprises to 12 percent, down from an original 20 percent ceiling. THSRC claims that after the injection of fresh funds, government and state-owned enterprises will still only have an 11.89 percent stake in the company, while its major shareholders will jointly hold a 28.52 percent. But it is well known that government investments are often made indirectly and hidden under the category of "private investments."
Critics are also concerned that the government's decision to pump more capital into the rail project conflicts with the spirit of the "build, operate and transfer" (BOT) model. In this model, the government is not supposed to interfere with the project, but rather let private investors build and operate the system for a certain period of time before transferring ownership to the government.
The critics have a point. The government's financial boost to the nation's first BOT project has raised doubts about the viability of that business model in Taiwan. Nevertheless, the project is now almost 90 percent complete, and no one wants to see it collapse. The government therefore has little choice but to aid the high-speed rail project in its hour of need. In fact, if the rail project is disrupted because of fund-raising difficulties, the government would have to make a compulsory buyout, which would cost an estimated NT$300 billion -- not to mention the job losses, legal disputes and economic fallout that would result.
And so, the government's decision should be viewed rationally. The Cabinet has decided to form a special task force of experts in transportation, financing and operational management to evaluate the rail project. Hopefully this special team will act to supervise the multi-billion dollar project. THSRC's major private shareholders -- whose affiliated companies make big profits by contracting construction work -- have been hesitant to inject more money into the project. The task force should also thoroughly review major shareholders' responsibilities and consider whether the board of directors should be adjusted after the high-speed railway begins service next October.
It is important to note that the THSRC's contracts with the government were finalized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) before the DPP took power. It is therefore unreasonable to blame the DPP for all the project's difficulties. For its part, the government should avoid pointing fingers, and work to review the its previous agreement with the THSRC and establish a new division of rights and responsibilities between the government and the private sector.
There were high hopes in the past about the high-speed rail project, and expectations that it would be completed in the fundamental spirit of the BOT model. The project's current crisis shows that the BOT experiment has failed. The government, private sector and the public should learn from this fiasco and avoid making the same mistakes with other BOT projects in the future.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS