A few days ago, Chinese government-backed company Tsinghua Unigroup Ltd — China’s largest chip designer — issued an announcement saying that the company planned to acquire stakes in large Taiwanese integrated circuit (IC) packing and testing firms. There were also reports that the company had been putting pressure on the government to open up the local IC design industry to Chinese investors.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs, which has all along promoted such deregulation and opening up, has said that it would scrutinize Tsinghua’s investment plan in close detail. However, because the Chinese government stands behind Tsinghua, other nations are submitting similar investment plans to even stricter reviews.
When it comes to industries of strategic value and national importance, a government has a great responsibility to provide adequate protection.
Consider the US. In July, Tsinghua Unigroup offered US$23 billion for Micron Technology, a big US manufacturer of DRAM chips, but the US government came up with several reasons to block the deal. The most important among the reasons offered was national security.
If even Washington blocks Tsinghua from investing in nationally important industries, why does Taipei think it can open the doors to such investment without consideration?
Based on national security concerns, many governments are placing restrictions on the investments and other commercial activities of foreign firms.
Here are just a few examples: In April 2003, the US government cited national security concerns as a reason to block Chinese investors from acquiring Global Crossing, a telecommunications company that provided worldwide computer networking services and was a tier 1 carrier. That same year, Hong Kong businessman Li Ka-shing’s (李嘉誠) Hutchison Port Holdings Trust wanted to invest in the development of a bulk terminal run by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust in Mumbai, only to have the investment rejected by the Indian government because the Cabinet Committee on Security said that the port was too close to India’s Southern Naval Command and that a facility operated by Chinese investors so close by would be a major national security concern.
One of the many ways that the US and India differ from Taiwan is that the two nations do not have to worry about being annexed by China. Despite that, their governments still want to prevent any negative eventualities that could arise in connection to Chinese investments.
The reason for such considerations is of course that they are concerned over China’s fundamental character as a dictatorship and that this could result in Chinese companies operating in ways that are different from how normal markets operate, such as investing in and running operations for political rather than commercial reasons.
The threat that China poses to Taiwan is much more direct than that, so of course there is absolutely no reason for the government to make light of allowing Chinese investors to acquire Taiwanese companies. Doing so would be tantamount to abandoning all pretense of protecting national security.
Huang Di-ying is an attorney and spokesperson for the Democratic Progressive Party.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS