It was only a year ago that the government’s second wave of cross-strait deregulation opened the door for Chinese firms to own up to a 10 percent stake in Taiwanese LCD panel makers. The relaxation came after persistent calls from local firms, which were in a race against South Korea’s Samsung and LG Display to gain a faster foothold in the newest battleground — China, which had overtaken the US as the world’s biggest LCD TV market.
Forming partnerships with Chinese firms through equity investments was considered to be a shortcut.
Taiwanese firms had their eyes on five licenses Beijing was giving out for advanced 8.5-generation factories, which would allow local panel makers to sell their displays in the world’s largest market without a 2 percent tariff applied to imported panels. Based on this, AU Optronics (AUO), Taiwan’s second-biggest LCD panel maker, submitted a US$796 million investment proposal last year for a 49 percent stake in Chinese peer Longfei Optoelectronics — which happened to receive one of the licenses.
However, the industry started to tumble beginning in the second half of last year. AUO’s proposal was the only China-bound LCD investment proposal and nothing was heard from the Chinese, sending an early indicator that it was going to be tough to push for closer cooperation between the Chinese and Taiwanese LCD industries through equity investment.
AUO suspended its plan to build a 8.5G factory with Longfei in China as the wobbling European and US economies dampened demand for luxury goods and TVs in the third quarter of last year. To get through these tough times, AUO retained cash to help manage the industry’s volatility instead of investing in new capacity. The company cut its equipment outlays 30 percent to NT$40 billion (US$1.35 billion) this year, from last year’s NT$57 billion.
Despite all this, the Cabinet last week dropped a bombshell and passed the third review of a proposal to raise the ceiling for Chinese investments to 50 percent of local LCD panel makers.
Will this further relaxation of the rules suddenly make debt-ridden Taiwanese LCD panel manufacturers more attractive? Will the new rule increase the chances for mergers and acquisitions across the Taiwan Strait? The answer will be no. The hopes of an injection of Chinese capital look faint.
The timing of further deregulation is wrong. During the past year and a half, stagnant demand and plunging prices have driven display makers into deep losses. Chinese panel companies are no exception. Even South Korean electronics giant Samsung announced it would to spin off its display unit to focus on new technologies after Japanese company Sony pulled out of a panel manufacturing joint venture.
With their technological advantage narrowing, Taiwanese companies are gradually losing the bargaining edge. Chinese firms are catching up as they ramp up production and supply standard flat-panels for PCs and TVs, and now Chinese firms such as BOE Technology Group are set to crank out bigger TV screens from their own 8.5G plants this year.
Chinese panel makers will soon need even more advanced technologies, but Taiwanese firms will avoid technology transfers for fear of losing their competitive edge. Besides, Taiwanese firms have been lagging behind Samsung and LG Display in the development of next-generation technologies for high-resolution AMOLED displays — seen as the next mainstream technology.
As panel supply typically exceeds demand, there is no urgency for Chinese TV brands to invest in local panel companies to secure supply. They will maintain flexibile panel sourcing and steer clear of any equity investment in local suppliers to avoid any cost increases or investment losses.
Taiwanese LCD companies can only count on themselves and support from local banks to make it through this difficult time.
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