The Administrative Supreme Court has ruled that a new selection process shall choose a company for the freeway electronic toll collection (ETC) system because the original process was flawed.
The most urgent task is to find a way to complete the selection process -- not to debate whether the government should handle the project by itself, find another firm to run the ETC system, reopen the bidding process or abandon the project.
The Far Eastern Group's decision, however, to give its shares in Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co (FETC) to the government opens up new possibilities for the ETC project.
From a corporate perspective, the donation was a good way for the Far Eastern Group to limit the damage to its image from the flap over the ETC project. Whether the government should accept the donation remains to be seen. This involves questions of legality, nationalization, sustainable operations and the fairness of the selection process -- all of which must be handled with care.
Some worry that if government shares in FETC exceed 20 percent, then this will violate the Law for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (促進民間參與公共建設法). Article 4 of the law states that if the government or a government-owned enterprise makes an equity investment in, or donation to, a private institution, the total amount of the investment or donation must not exceed 20 percent of the institution's total capital or assets.
Since FETC is not a government-owned company, its donation should not violate the law. But if the government directly accepts a 55-percent share in FETC, the company would become a government-owned firm -- raising the question of whether it would still qualify as a bidder for the ETC project.
Questions have also been raised about the nationalization of FETC. From a policy perspective, the government should make clear whether nationalization of FETC would change the policy that the ETC project be a private sector endeavor. Since the project has had a major impact on private participation and investment in infrastructure projects, the government must clearly explain its policy and its stance on public participation.
As is common with transport companies, FETC sustained heavy losses during the start-up period. It will also need to make a big investment in replacing its systems in the future. If nationalized, FETC would be restricted by the government's budget procedures. What impact this would have on the company's ability to raise capital should be taken into account.
If the issues raised by nationalization are too complex, nothing is stopping the government from entering into negotiations with the Far Eastern Group to set up a public benefit fund or some other legal entity in order to accept the donation of shares. As long as that fund or entity does not accept government donations above a certain percentage, the nationalization issue would be irrelevant, and there would be no risk of violating the law.
Having a public interest institution take over the shares would also fulfill the Far Eastern Group's initial purpose, so chances are good that it would accept such a solution.
But turning FETC into a public institution would still leave the problem of raising the capital needed for sustainable operations.
How many public institutions have the ability and the financial credibility to participate in FETC's fundraising activities? Could FETC raise the necessary capital by finding new shareholders?
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) must quickly decide if it will accept the share donation and, if so, how and when it will do so. Dragging this decision out would only create more uncertainty about the selection process, raising more questions about the fairness of the process. It would also violate the Administrative Supreme Court's suggesion.
The ministry must deal with all the issues that may affect the selection process and find a way to win the trust of participants if it is to avoid creating a whole new controversy.
Huang Yu-lin is an associate professor in the department of civil engineering at National Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under