Last Tuesday, the driver of a Group 4 Securicor-Taiwan (
What is known about the murky circumstances surrounding the heist leads only to further questions, and, according to media reports, the suspect has already escaped to Hong Kong.
The incident has shaken society because it has led to a gnawing feeling that security companies are incapable of protecting the nation's hard-earned wealth.
The mechanisms set up to control security companies are riddled with problems, including poor internal control systems and the spotty external supervision and controls provided by police.
When it comes to the internal control systems, the general public wants to know whether security companies have made any efforts to improve their employees' commitment to their work and the company, and if they have tried to avoid creating a situation where security personnel feel dissatisfied with or resent the company. If employees feel resentment about their poor salaries, hours, time off and health care, they will be more likely to steal. However, many doubt that for-profit security companies are really willing to spend money on these issues.
A more serious internal control issue is that security companies have not set up strict systems for supervision and control of vehicle routes, in particular with respect to cash transport. This is the reason why Group 4 Securicor-Taiwan lost contact with its armored car, which went unmonitored for four hours. Altogether, six hours passed from the moment the armored car set out until the theft was reported to police.
Although the armored car was equipped with GPS, the company did not know that it had strayed from its intended route, which points directly at a lack of external controls.
When it comes to external supervision and control systems, the internal operations of security companies should be regulated by the government to prevent companies from neglecting security in order to generate more profits. The concerned agencies should therefore perform inspections on a regular or random basis.
In the event of staff shortages at the concerned government agencies, there should at the very least be regulations in place to guard against, or provide disciplinary measures to deal with, irregular behavior among security companies such as that exhibited by Group 4 Securicor-Taiwan.
Several factors have led to the government's lax restrictions and disciplinary measures for security companies. Relevant government departments have failed to establish stricter regulations as a result of pressure applied by the security companies. Concerned officials also lack incentives to better regulate the companies. For example, I was told by a friend that every time a meeting was called to discuss ways to regulate security companies, the companies went through various channels to express their concern and stop policies from being implemented.
It is obvious that there is a great amount of room for improvement in the government's regulation of security companies. It will be interesting to see whether last Tuesday's heist will provide sufficient impetus for the government to make such improvements. The government should not wait for another major heist before it takes people's livelihoods and assets more seriously.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor in the Department of Political Science and the Graduate Institute of Political Economy at National Cheng Kung 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
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
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