The Ministry of Audit’s latest report shows that the nation’s 23 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) posted a combined revenue of NT$3.716 trillion (US$118.7 billion) and expenditure of NT$3.477 trillion last year, leaving an annual surplus of NT$239 billion for the year. The report indicates that only three SOEs reported losses last year and that the combined surplus of the 23 SOEs was about 29 percent higher than the NT$184.3 billion estimated surplus in the government’s budget approved by the legislature.
Employees and union representatives of state-run businesses are asking for higher wages, which, they suggest, might encourage their peers in the private sector and benefit the nation’s economy.
The corporatist model in Taiwan’s economy has long endorsed that companies, whether state-run or privately owned, distribute bonuses and pay raises when they are making enough money to share their earnings with employees. The SOEs’ scorecard for last year seemed fantastic and almost everyone would have agreed that a pay raise is accordingly the next move.
However, the public knows this will not happen soon because Cabinet officials last month said that civil servants and SOE employees would not receive pay raises until wage increases were implemented for employees of private enterprises. Several lawmakers are putting enormous effort into pushing for the passage of amendments to four related laws that provide tax incentives to publicly traded companies that share their profits with employees and raise wages.
However, who actually contributed to the national coffers? From the ministry’s report, the central bank made the most money among the 20 profitable SOEs last year. Without its NT$198 billion — 83 percent of total profit — which the bank gained through its forex investments and interest income, Taiwanese SOEs would have made a much smaller contribution.
State utility Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) was next with profits of NT$14.1 billion, compared with the NT$17.5 billion loss it made in the previous year. Although it was Taipower’s first profitable year since 2006 — thanks to falling international prices of some key raw materials for electricity generation — the firm still faced an accumulated deficit of NT$208.4 billion as of the end of last year. In other words, last year’s profit was tiny compared with the firm’s accumulated losses over the years.
In contrast, the ministry’s report shows that refiner CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC), the Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) and BankTaiwan Life Insurance Co were the three SOEs that remained unprofitable last year. CPC led the pack with a loss of NT$33 billion, a stark contrast with the NT$17.2 billion in earnings it had forecast for the year. BankTaiwan Life Insurance registered a loss of NT$842 million, a reversal of its previously projected profit of NT$252 million for the year. Meanwhile, the TRA registered losses of NT$3.7 billion last year, after predicting a loss of NT$6.2 billion. What is clear from their lackluster performances is not only heavy deficits, but also persistent inefficiency.
The perennial issue of state firms’ lack of competitiveness is not new. Over the years, the government has repeatedly vowed to reform SOEs, but its pledges are nothing but empty words. The biggest problem facing the government is an inability to overcome obstacles posed by strongly vested interests in state companies, especially with top management positions filled with political appointments to reward government supporters and loyal party figures.
Therefore, without any real action being taken to improve the supervision of SOEs and reform the state firms’ ownership structure and management, Taiwan will have to continue relying on its central bank to make contributions to the treasury every year.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS