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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.