In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, HTC Corp chairwoman Cher Wang (王雪紅) said at a press conference in Taiwanese and Chinese that she sided with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in support of the so-called “1992 consensus.” At the time, HTC had a net revenue of NT$619.76 billion (US$19.95 billion), earnings per share of NT$714.74 in 2011, a share price of NT$1,300 and market capitalization of NT$1.63 trillion. However, that same day was the beginning of the firm’s downfall, as she proclaimed that HTC is a Chinese brand. Since then, HTC’s mobile phone division has lost half of its sales in the Taiwanese market, likely in part due to pan-green camp voters vowing never to use HTC products again.
Wang’s words did not gain HTC 1.3 billion supporters in China. Was this situation brought about by the low self-esteem of a small nation, or a company’s long-term indoctrination by a foreign regime?
The unorthodox viewpoint of China held by Taiwanese academics, government officials and journalists is that the nation’s economy is in China’s hands. In particular, a lot of entrepreneurs believe they can rely on the advantage of a common language to establish a brand in the giant cross-strait market, with dreams of then creating a global monopoly. It is this misconception that lead HTC to its demise.
China is a nationalist country. It might have 5,000 years of history, but this has not produced a civic culture of brotherly love and land for all Chinese. Rather, on a small scale, it is a society of many small Chinatowns around the world representing China’s ethnic identity, while on a large scale, it uses the spirit of “the Middle Kingdom,” descendants of the Yellow Emperor and references to China’s mighty revival to maintain a connection to the greater Chinese civilization, while deeming all other races barbarian.
Chinese ethnocentrism was rampant when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ruled pre-democratic Taiwan, which triggered the 228 Incident and the White Terror era.
Recently, Beijing has pushed guidelines for a national IC industry — the China Manufacturing 2025 effort and related policies — while an alien regime in Taiwan is singing to the same tune. Beijing’s goal has been to substitute Taiwanese-owned businesses in China and semiconductor industries still in Taiwan. Although Beijing has repeatedly called Taiwanese firms “compatriots,” it does not matter how hard they try to cooperate, Taiwanese firms are still Taiwanese and China does not want important industries and brands to be meddled with by “barbarians.”
Wang’s claim that HTC is a firm created by Chinese and that it is a world-class, international brand created for Chinese is not leaving an impression on the Chinese ethnic identity. On the contrary, it is triggering a negative effect worldwide. If the Japanese were told that HTC is a Chinese brand, would they then choose HTC even if the price and functionality were the same?
The same problem would occur in Vietnam, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations as well as in the US and Europe, especially when China launches its “One Belt, One Road” initiative to bolster the “glorious revival of the Chinese people.”
In confronting Taiwan’s economic hardships, it is urgent that leaders and entrepreneurs address Taiwanese identity and HTC’s worldview. They must understand that working toward being a Chinese business will not bring the desired outcome and will lead to failure, because it alienates global markets.
Perhaps they should use a similar strategy to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co and become rooted in Taiwan focusing on technology to run a successful business.
Huang Tien-lin is former president and chairman of First Commercial Bank and a former Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Zane Kheir
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS