Google should be commended for its courage in standing up against Big Brother in China after announcing its plan to stop censoring search results on its google.cn platform — a condition imposed on the US Internet giant when it entered the Chinese market in 2006.
Two weeks have passed, however, and Google has yet to end censorship on its platform. This tells us that it is remains caught between its business interests in China and the universal principle of Internet freedom it should stand for.
This is not an easy decision, since the management of Google has to look after the interests of its shareholders, who are obviously keen on securing its share of the booming Internet market in China.
Ironically, if Google were to make good on its threat and pull out of the Chinese market for good, it could be doing the authorities a favor. In Beijing’s eyes, the Internet giant is a threat to its control of information on the Internet.
Nevertheless, Google should be reminded that if it were to rescind its threat and continue to play a role in China’s Internet censorship, its businesses outside China could be jeopardized, as Internet surfers may not brook its tainted integrity.
Google, therefore, should stop prevaricating and put an end to the censorship of search results in China — unless it has a backup plan that guarantees it can “go around” China’s efforts to censor the Internet, as Microsoft founder Bill Gates proposed on Tuesday.
The ultimate outcome, though, could be ugly: Should it refuse to go along with Beijing’s conditions, the search engine could be forced out of the market. If this happened, China would only have itself to blame, and it is hard to believe that the breakup would last very long.
Alongside its economic progress, China has every ambition to become a world leader. To achieve this goal, it will face external pressure to make its domestic market more fair and transparent and to democratize.
In the Google case, we have seen mounting support from the US government and European countries, which should stick to their guns until changes in China follow.
In the end, however, the biggest force behind China’s liberalization will come from within.
Unfortunately, there are very few signs at the moment to indicate that the Chinese public or businesses are taking advantage of the opportunity created by the Google spat to demand more Internet freedom. What we’ve witnessed, instead, is comments such as those by Alibaba Group Holding CEO Jack Ma (馬雲), who called Google a failure in China, arguing in Taipei last week that the conflict was nothing more that Google’s poor attempt at making excuses for its shortcomings.
In the world of global business, Alibaba is no match for Google. The largest online business-to-business marketplace in China makes less than US$150 million in quarterly revenues, hardly on par with Google’s US$5.9 billion in the third quarter last year.
Unless Alibaba wishes to limit its growth to China alone, it is bound to stumble if, as it seeks to expand, it continues to operate in a way that serves not its clients but an authoritarian regime. Now that is a recipe for failure.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS