A country’s infrastructure, from airports and road networks to telecommunications and public utilities, is often described as its arteries, essential for domestic development, global competitiveness and national security.
For this reason, many countries block any investment in infrastructure that could pose a threat to security. A couple of examples come to mind: India’s largest public telecoms firm, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), excluded China’s Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Corp from bidding for a network project in 2006 on the grounds of potential security risk. In 2003, the US Department of Defense, also citing national security concerns, rejected Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s (李嘉誠) bid to acquire Global Crossing’s fiber-optic network.
Neither the US nor India fear being annexed by China, yet they exercised caution because of the sensitivity of their infrastructure.
For Taiwan, China’s aggression is all too real. Nevertheless, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is considering allowing Chinese capital in highly sensitive sectors.
The 101 sectors that the government plans to open to Chinese investment would include key infrastructure such as the planned Taoyuan airport zone and ports.
The government also plans to open hotel maintenance, maintenance of aircraft including military accessories, and basic telecom services to cross-strait investment.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus is pushing for an amendment to the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (促進民間參與公共建設法) that would ease guidelines for build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects, paving the way for Chinese investment.
Experts at government agencies know better than the public the risks that placing control over infrastructure into hostile hands would carry. The government’s refusal to discuss these concerns is thus all the more disturbing.
Ma yesterday renewed his call for the US to sell F-16C/D fighter jets to Taiwan. Yet considering the sectors selected by the Ministry of Economic Affairs for Chinese investment, the US has good cause to be hesitant.
Opening some sectors could also have the effect of undermining domestic companies. The BOT model provides private domestic companies with business opportunities, but the government has failed to address concerns that Chinese investment could end up taking these profits out of the country.
The Ma administration has vowed to revive the nation’s stagnant economy. The public welcomes efforts to do so, but in the case of overhauling regulations with a potentially critical impact on national sovereignty, the government has a duty to examine the risks involved.
Allowing Chinese companies to construct and manage sensitive projects is reckless. Regardless of the opportunities that foreign direct investment represents, security risks should be assessed. When it comes to infrastructure, it is doubtful that the public would support gambling on the nation’s lifelines to chase profits.
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS