Taiwan’s “talent crisis” has become a hot topic lately, on which everyone seems to have their own view. National Science Council Minister Cyrus Chu (朱敬一) said Taiwan is suffering from a talent gap, while Minister without Portfolio Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) said Taiwan is “driving the fish away to deep waters,” and could deteriorate to a third-world country within the next three to five years. A high-tech business owner even said his business is unable to recruit skilled staff here, and that Taiwan is likely to export “Taiwanese migrant laborers” in future.
Meanwhile, some have started to point fingers at others. Political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) said early last month that it is the lack of talent among Taiwan’s political leaders that has caused the country problems.
Others blame the problem on education reform, while high-paid professionals blame it on low unattractive salaries.
Does Taiwan really lack talented people? Take the following example:
In late 2009, Chen Li-yi (陳立宜), then-head director of Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp, and 200 staff resigned and moved to China where they established CSOT Corp, China’s highest-generation panel manufacturer in just 17-and-a-half months. This shows that Taiwan has talented people and that they are first-rate professionals.
There are innumerable examples of China’s policy to recruit Taiwanese high-tech talent. Some Chinese companies even pay Taiwanese professionals generously, offering a “one-to-one” ratio — they offer the same figures as in their original salaries, but in Chinese yuan rather than New Taiwan dollars. Who can resist this? No wonder the chairman of a high-tech business recently said with a sigh that China has lured more than 200 managers away from Taiwan’s machinery industry.
Oddly, while academics discuss Taiwan’s “talent crisis” with such passion, no one mentions the absence of a “technology protection law” for controlling the outflow of technological talent.
In more technologically developed US, Japan and South Korea, technology and talent have always been more strictly controlled. Had the Chi Mei case occurred in South Korea, those who moved to China could have been charged with industrial espionage, and the South Korean government could have arrested them at the airport for taking confidential commercial information out of the country.
To ensure economic security, the US passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, Atomic Energy Act, Export Administration Act and Economic Espionage Act in 1917, 1954, 1979 and 1996 respectively to protect sensitive advanced technology and talent, and prevent them from leaving the country.
The Taiwanese government is not so stupid that it does not know how important a technology protection law is.
In March 2002, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government lifted a ban that prohibited Taiwanese chipmakers from building eight-inch wafer fabs in China based on three conditions: the adoption of a technology protection law, only allowing chipmakers that had operated advanced 12-inch wafer fabs at mass production for at least six months in Taiwan to set up in China and limiting the number of Taiwanese wafer fabs that could be established in China. Because of this, the government drafted a national science and technology protection act and regulations for high-tech talent working in the mainland area.
Unfortunately, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) repeatedly challenged and blocked the drafts after they were submitted to the legislature in October of the same year. This gave China sufficient time to absorb Taiwan’s advanced technology.
After President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power in 2008, the Cabinet submitted a letter to the legislature withdrawing certain draft bills proposed by the DPP government, including the science and technology protection act, thus allowing China to attract both Taiwanese technology and talent without any limitations. That being so, the Chi Mei case was not very surprising.
It is not a matter of Taiwan lacking sufficient talent, it is a case of enterprises complaining that there is none.
That is the fault of the KMT and the KMT government, because they blocked the science and technology protection act and intentionally drove the nation’s talent away.
Huang Tien-lin is a former presidential adviser.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath