Saturday marked the Taiwan Railway Administration's (TRA) 120th anniversary. Government policy in recent years has emphasized the construction of highways rather than the expansion of the railway system, the number of personal vehicles has increased and air transportation has seen rapid development. This has led to structural changes in the domestic transportation market that have caused operational problems for the TRA.
To deal with the impact of the social, economic, political and technological developments of the 21st century, the TRA must transform its mode of operation by implementing a sweeping restructuring project. Everything from organizational structure to organizational culture needs to be addressed, and the TRA needs to abandon its inflexible structures and instead promote joint management abilities and build a new operational model. Only in this way can the TRA become more competitive and respond to new challenges.
A new operational model must be formulated based on the following principles. First, the TRA must minimize its organizational scale and service scope. Second, it must become operationally flexible. Third, operational responsibility must be clear. Fourth, customer service must be improved.
The purpose of restructuring the TRA would be transformation based on market principles, not merely change for the sake of it. The administration's management system needs to become adaptable in meeting its requirements. The restructuring plan should not be restricted to saving on wasteful expenditure or reducing inaccurate cost reporting and the misuse of funds, but should also develop an ability to tap into new sources of profit. Nor should it be a streamlining plan implementing mechanical cuts across the board, but rather a remodeling in pursuit of a reasonable structure.
The restructuring would not simply amount to privatization. Rather, it should be a plan to rebuild the administrative culture, revitalize the management system, improve operational efficiency and effectiveness, and safeguard the public interest.
Tu Chin-cheng is a graduate student in the political science department at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS