The main characteristics of good corporate behavior are a company that protects the interests of its shareholders and board members who act in good faith when establishing a company's operational strategies and overseeing major capital expenditures.
Sadly, none of these characteristics were present at Asia Pacific Broadband Telecom Co (APBT).
As long as it remains under the notorious Rebar Asia Pacific Group -- which is now infamous for its poor track record in corporate governance -- the key question that will need to be answered is not why or how the company managed to perform so badly, but rather how APBT was able to exploit the legal loopholes that allowed this situation to obtain in the first place.
Founded in May 2000 with a paid-in capital of NT$65.68 billion (US$2 billion), the fixed-line operator chose not to become a public company. The reason? The law says that an unlisted company does not have to publicly disclose its financial statements.
Perhaps the most troubling issue that has come into focus is Article 156-4 of the Company Law (
Article 156-4 was added in November 2001 -- a year after the company was created. However, the previous regulation, which took effect in November 2000 and was valid at the time, stipulated that companies with a capitalization of NT$500 million had to issue public shares.
So shares went public. What has yet to be determined is whether the scandal resulted from lax management within the government, corporate bad practices or simply shrewdness on APBT's part.
APBT is unlikely to change its non-listed status so long as Rebar family still controls 22 of the company's 33-seat board. With Rebar Group's obvious control of the board, no resolution will be adopted that would prevent Rebar from usurping APBT's capital to invest in other affiliates. And it certainly will feel no obligation to ensure accurate disclosure and transparency.
The news on Friday that APBT had decided to book some NT$30 billion in asset impairment -- most of which was derived from the purchase of junk bonds from other Rebar affiliates -- did not come as a surprise. With that, APBT would see its net value decline to around NT$5 per share, from NT$9.18 in 2005.
Now that the government has appointed the Small Business Integrated Assistance Foundation and KPMG International to audit APBT's finances, it is hoped that accountants will help clarify the methods used by management to determine the fair value of those impaired assets and enable investors to understand how reliable the management's assumptions and calculations are.
Despite this in-depth look at the company, APBT will be unable to continue operations absent changes in its board. The government should pressure the Rebar Group to relinquish its board control to allow such changes to happen.
While the government should act to plug the legal loopholes and punish government-appointed board directors for their lax governance, it should not go as far as taking over the company, as it might have done in the past. Whatever the government does, it should do at arm's length.
Safeguard shareholder benefits, protecting the interests of subscribers and securing the working rights of APBT employees are all important objectives. But above all this, the government's main responsibility is not to board members, subscribers or investors.
It is to taxpayers.
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