Over the past few years, the government has made a number of efforts to maintain discipline in the nation’s financial sector. In addition, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) has tried to avoid looking like a paper tiger. Unfortunately, the commission’s latest punitive action against Global Life Insurance Co shows otherwise.
According to a statement posted on the commission’s Web site on May 10, it decided to ban Global Life from investing in shares of listed companies, with the exception of exchange traded funds (ETF) and Grade-A bonds, and prohibit the unlisted insurer from making new overseas investments for violating the Insurance Act (保險法).
The punishment came after Global Life on May 6 cast its vote in a board of directors election at the publicly listed Long Bon International Co, a Greater Taichung-based investment holding company which has subsidiaries including Taiwan Life Insurance Co, King Dragon Life Insurance Co and Reiju Construction Co.
Under the Insurance Act, insurers are not allowed to influence the management of companies in which they own stakes.
According to local media reports, Global Life had earlier promised the commission it would not interfere with the management of Long Bon.
However, this insurer was found to have not only voted during Long Bon’s shareholders’ meeting, but also supported its favored candidates to be elected to the board.
The commission’s disciplinary action against Global Life serves as a reminder to local insurance companies that they must abide by the law while conducting investments.
Despite no government receivership being considered, the commission’s actions are seen as a warning to Global Life — which has seen its financial structure deteriorate in recent years, with a negative net value of NT$20.92 billion (US$696 million), a net loss of NT$3.16 billion and a capital adequacy ratio of below the required 200 percent minimum last year — that it should not use policyholders’ money recklessly.
A closer look at the commission’s disciplinary action also shows the regulator’s effort to halt Global Life’s rumored attempts to acquire Taiwan Life Insurance Co through its investment in Long Bon, as the former is reportedly eyeing Taiwan Life’s ample funds to help it turn around its fortunes.
However, to provide an effective deterrent, the commission’s penalties have to be more severe.
What is needed is the removal of top management at Global Life because they have broken their pledge not to influence Long Bon’s management.
Moreover, if those at the top are found to not have real authority but are a mere rubber stamp for major shareholders, the commission must find out who the real players behind the scenes are and mete out punishment to them as well.
The financial regulator should also consider punishing Global Life for its continued failure to obtain fresh capital to improve its financial structure and closely monitor the company’s progress to seek a constructive way to exit the market.
Two other local insurers, Singfor Life Insurance and Chaoyang Life Insurance, have also seen their net value fall into negative territory, which means that the commission should also pay close attention to these firms.
The commission should not be discouraged from taking punitive action against Global Life, but it should take action that is severe enough to prevent market irregularities.
What the public wants to see is a financial regulator that has real teeth and is able to ensure rigorous market discipline and corporate governance.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with