Last week, several executives at local computer memory companies were shocked at remarks made by the government’s designated semiconductor czar for the struggling industry, who said government-funded Taiwan Memory Co would focus on seeking technological alliances with foreign chipmakers and that it would purchase factories from local chipmakers, but not pursue an outright merger.
The executives were further frustrated when the Ministry of Economic Affairs said local companies that produce dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips would have to solve their own financial problems and not rely on Taiwan Memory or the government.
Of course, the executives were disappointed and angry because the government’s policy is very different from what most people had expected when it launched Taiwan Memory. With the policy change, local DRAM companies will likely receive no government funds to bail them out of the current mess.
Whether the cause of the policy change was over concerns about complicated mergers or simply misunderstanding and miscommunication, the government shoulders the blame for allowing DRAM companies to harbor unrealistic expectations on a government rescue for the past months — up until last week.
But what really mattered was that the government made it clear that it was not its responsibility to rescue individual companies using taxpayers’ money.
Moreover, it has become evident that chipmakers should assume the responsibility for the losses they have generated over years of expansion and oversupply. These companies owe an apology to their shareholders and investors, especially now their shares are little more than penny stocks and their debt is rising continuously.
Unfortunately, we have not heard any of these firms apologize to shareholders and investors. The companies continue to blame everyone but themselves.
Previously, they criticized the government for restricting their investments in China. Then they attributed years of oversupply and falling prices to volatility in the highly cyclical industry. Recently, they blamed a lack of liquidity in the banking sector for their financial difficulty.
Ironically, despite all of their obvious misjudgments and bad management, most executives at these DRAM companies have not compromised their compensation packages to cope with a slowing business, but left employees, shareholders and investors to pay a hefty price — job losses and falling share prices.
Everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions. Even US billionaire Warren Buffett made investment mistakes — especially in financial derivatives — that saw his Berkshire Hathaway Inc record its worst ever financial results last year.
But Buffett apologized to shareholders in his annual letter on Feb. 27, admitting that he did some “dumb things” last year and made “at least one major mistake ... and several lesser ones that also hurt.”
While many of Berkshire’s losses last year were unrealized on long-term derivatives contracts and the firm predicts that the contracts will ultimately be profitable, Buffett did not try to escape responsibility.
“If we lose money on our derivatives, it will be my fault,” he said in the letter.
Taiwan’s DRAM companies do have the right to criticize the government’s change of policy. But given the industry’s gloomy prospects and their rising debt, no one can deny that the time has come to address the issue of a graceful exit from the business.
Instead of pointing fingers at others, the companies should face up to their own mistakes and offer an apology to shareholders and investors.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic