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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS