At a time when the government’s consistency and credibility in encouraging financial consolidation is being questioned, the Ministry of Finance’s surprise victory in securing a majority in the Chang Hwa Bank board of directors last week did not help restore the public’s faith in the government in terms of public-private partnerships.
Mergers among financial institutions remain a sensitive issue. In 2005, Taishin Financial Holding Co outbid six competitors to grab a controlling 22.5 percent stake in then-debt-ridden Chang Hwa Bank, becoming the bank’s largest shareholder. Ideally, the deal would have resulted in synergic benefits, with state-run Chang Hwa holding a strong franchise in corporate lending and Taishin Financial’s banking arm, Taishin International Bank, gaining expertise in consumer banking, Treasury markets and wealth management.
However, there has been little cooperation between the two over the past nine years, because the ministry has been against Taishin Financial’s potential merger with Chang Hwa Bank. On Monday, the ministry surprisingly secured six out of nine seats on Chang Hwa Bank’s board, leaving Taishin Financial with just three. This means that the ministry has the power to appoint a new chairman for the bank and make objections to whatever is favorable to Taishin Financial.
The prospects of the planned merger of Taishin International Bank with Chang Hwa Bank look extremely slim after the boardroom showdown. However, the conglomerate has not taken the defeat lying down and has filed a lawsuit seeking an interpretation of its 2005 contract with the ministry. The conglomerate is also seeking NT$10 billion (US$320 million) in compensation for damages linked to the investment.
For Taishin Financial, the legal action is the right response to safeguard the interests of its shareholders, because without majority board representation it will have to change its accounting treatment of Chang Hwa Bank and recognize a one-off loss of NT$14.8 billion. Moreover, the conglomerate may have to reduce its stake in Chang Hwa Bank to cope with requirements set in the Financial Holding Company Act (金融控股公司法), which stipulate that financial holding companies cannot have a more than 5 percent stake in two similar financial companies if they are not its subsidiaries.
Clearly, losing control over Chang Hwa Bank will not only affect Taishin Financial’s earnings outlook, but also make it even more difficult for it to diversify and expand into the Chinese market, where Chang Hwa Bank has a branch in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, and one in Dongguan, Guangdong Province. It is no wonder that Taishin Financial last week also lodged a complaint with the Control Yuan, asking it to investigate whether the ministry was involved in any misconduct in the boardroom battle.
The ministry said that it is confident it will win the lawsuit, as the 2005 pledge is no longer valid or binding. Triumphant or self-vindicating, as that may be, with the case now in the hands of judicial authorities, it shows that Taiwan has failed to follow through on its promise to facilitate financial consolidation through mergers.
The ministry is to face a new battle in the coming months to defend actions, while the loss of mutual trust between the private and public sectors is a critical issue facing the nation as a whole. As for the government’s policy of building state-run financial institutions into regional players, with the ministry’s persistent fears of private banks exploiting state-run lenders, and a lack of willingness to inject new capital into state lenders, there is little chance of this policy being achieved in the foreseeable future.
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