Recently, the government's second stage of financial reforms have become yet another cause of fierce political bickering among the major parties. The Legislative Yuan's finance committee even passed a motion last week to suspend disposals of government holdings in financial institutions.
One of the opposition's main criticisms was that the financial reforms will only benefit certain large financial conglomerates in the name of privatization. This has upset President Chen Shui-bian (
The theory goes like this: The government plans to halve the number of state-owned banks to six by the end of this year, and cut the number of financial holding companies by half -- to seven -- through mergers by the end of 2006. As six out of the 14 holding companies are currently under three conglomerates, run by the Wu, Koo and Tsai families, the government's reform plans will create an uneven income concentration. This suggests that the wealth created via the reforms will mostly benefit the rich.
Not only that, but employees of state-owned banks may lose their jobs, so the country will see a higher unemployment rate at a time when the economy is slowing down. Hence the opposition camp said it is time to call it quits on the reforms.
However, it should be remembered that these plans were passed by the Economic Development Advisory Conference in August 2001, meaning that privatization was backed by the opposition parties at the time.
And it is also important to realize that when it comes to bank mergers and acquisitions, large conglomerates are the only ones able to participate. It is entirely impossible for ordinary people to get involved in such financial consolidations.
The problem is, of course, the role the government can play in assuring people that the consolidation will be carried out with efficiency and fairness.
Generally speaking, the DPP government's first stage of financial reforms was one of the few policies applauded by investors, as it helped to improve the financial structure of domestic banks.
The government's second stage of financial reforms therefore are aimed at expanding the scope of domestic financial institutions to enable them to compete in regional or global markets. The government vowed to develop at least three domestic banks with more than 10 percent market share by the end of this year and allow at least one bank to be run by a foreign financial institution by the end of next year.
Opposition lawmakers argued that these targets, and those of halving the number of state banks and financial holding companies make no sense. But the real reason for opposition parties' increasing antagonism to the reforms may most likely be their intention to gain the upper hand over the DPP during the local government elections, if they can force the latter to fail in achieving its goals and so make the DPP lose credibility with investors. It is all about politics.
Although there might be flaws in the process of implementation, the direction of the government's financial reforms is correct and it must be allowed to carry on. To win back public support for the reforms, the government needs to ensure a more open and transparent bidding process for privatization efforts, as well as take into account the interests of banks, their shareholders and employees.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US