The resignation of Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp (THSRC, 台灣高鐵) chairwoman Nita Ing (殷琪) ended the 11-year long wave of “build-operate-transfer” (BOT) projects that began with THSRC. Kaohsiung’s famous Urban Spotlight (城市光廊), which was built under an “operate-transfer” (OT) contract, also closed down quietly not long ago.
These two events put a symbolic end to the BOT and OT craze. One can’t help wonder why truly private operations cannot survive and even become the targets of strong criticism, just as everyone is praising privatization. What is the problem?
The BOT concept is used when a government lacks the funds for a large-scale infrastructure project. The private sector invests a certain amount of funds in the construction, and the government then allows private investors to recoup their investments by operating the project for a certain number of years. Once the time is up, the project is handed over to the government.
The process does not mean that the government does not invest any money. Rather, it is a question of how much it can save.
Unexpectedly, the teams that won some bids promised that the government would not have to pay a cent, leading the public to believe that BOT meant the government could get a public project for free. Suddenly, everyone who didn’t want to be left behind was talking about BOT.
The best example was the Kaohsiung MRT project, which from the start was completely unsuitable for a BOT contract. Since the BOT system was so highly praised, the project suddenly turned into a BOT contract.
The BOT idea merged with the privatization trend. The less government involvement the better, and anything that needed building became a BOT project. All this was an empty dream, because BOT is not a cure-all.
The BOT system both rose and fell with THSRC. The model has been widely criticized since the high speed rail failure as if it were a vicious beast, but a comparison with the chronically delayed Taiwan Railway Administration service raises the question of whether state-run businesses are any better. I am afraid not.
So what happened with the BOT system?
I took part in an investigation on the construction of a cultural hall last year. After interviewing several private OT operators, I realized many won their bid without having a cultural mission. They just wanted to make money. They mostly complained that the government wanted too much compensation, and hoped for looser restrictions so they could make more money, otherwise they worried income would not cover expenses. As for the promotion of culture, that could only be discussed once they got what they wanted.
The question is who decides on the size of the compensation. In Taiwan, those who tender the highest bids — those who promise the biggest returns — are frequently the winners.
The operators’ first priority is simply to win the tender, and the government doesn’t care if it is the lowest bid that wins, often forgetting the importance of sustainable operations, as well as the original intention of the project, such as the promotion of culture. As a result, operators only care about making a profit, and they give up as soon as that becomes difficult. Where does that leave the rights of the taxpayer? The same situation cropped up in the THSRC and Kaohsiung MRT projects.
The BOT system is not a natural disaster or a vicious beast, but when dealing with businesspeople who only care about money, the government should open its eyes and choose its partners with caution.
It’s now likely that big government will become the norm for future infrastructure projects.
Wang Yu-fong is an assistant professor at National Kaohsiung Marine University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing