It was reported recently that the Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, the military research arm of the Ministry of Defense, was forced to halt production of advanced cruise missiles because of a lack of key parts not produced domestically.
For two decades, the government has championed technology transfer. From the early 1980s to the late 1990s, Taiwan was a global manufacturing center of many consumer electronics products including personal computers, liquid-crystal-display panels and CD players.
Why is it then, that Taiwan still depends on foreign sources for critical missile parts?
At fault perhaps is a problem known to very few laymen -- false technology transfer.
Take, for example, semiconductor memory production. In the 1980s, companies acquired a complete line of production from abroad and transplanted it to Taiwan.
A typical production line involved using crystal growth chambers, wafer slicing and cutting tools, diffusion furnaces, photolithographic setups, wire-bonding machines, encapsulation equipment and computerized logic testers.
None of those key components were made in Taiwan. What Taiwan provided was simply factories, labor and production management.
Is the situation any better after more than a quarter century in terms of local designs? The answer is no.
The nation's electronics industry still depends on foreign sources for vital ingredients in the production process, including focal plane image sensors, auto-focus motor drives, batteries and power management. Digital camera production is an example of this.
It goes without saying that Taiwanese industries excel in tweaking and improving manufacturing techniques, production efficiency and product yields.
But the nation's companies are lagging in terms of creative design innovation. Behind this problem lies the disadvantages of what is, at times, self-defeating technology transfer.
First of all, the notion that technology can be transferred must be critically challenged and debated.
What actions comprise a "technology transfer?" Procuring and transplanting a production line does not constitute the transfer of technology.
A company that owns such a line can at best be called the operator of a production line -- usually knowing nothing about the inner workings of even a single section of the manufacturing process.
So is it possible to transfer technology? The answer is yes if technology means nothing more than manufacturing. But if technology refers to the design process as well, then the answer is no.
A satellite designed and built from scratch requires thousands of parts and a truck load of engineering blueprints. The complexity of a satellite involves translating the design into a realization in hardware form.
But what a set of electronic blueprints depicts is no more than the final product -- an attempt to juggle design needs with costs and deadlines. It is not documentation of a designer's thought process and does not explain why the designer chose specific solutions or what other options were considered.
That missing information is what spoils the chances of technology transfer.
When it comes to building up a technology base, there are no shortcuts. Technology can be learned only through hard work and sweat.
Taiwan must abandon its belief in quick fixes and tackle its deficiencies in innovation. Otherwise it will often find itself in a situation similar to its difficulties in producing missiles.
Kengchi Goah is a research fellow at the Taiwan Public Policy Council in the US.
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