A draft bill for a “regulatory sandbox” on Wednesday last week passed a preliminary review by lawmakers. If it can clear the legislative floor during the current session, it would allow businesses — either financial institutions or technology firms — to experiment with financial technology (fintech) innovations in a loosely regulated environment. Moreover, it would make Taiwan the first nation in the world to establish a legal basis for such a sandbox framework.
The “sandbox” concept refers to an environment in which participants are allowed to conduct financial service ideas through trial and error without conforming to regulations for a certain period. It would not only benefit start-ups, but also established players that are looking to launch financial products, but have come into conflict with regulations.
Moreover, this regulatory advantage would help Taiwan accelerate fintech development, joining a fintech bandwagon that includes Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK, to name a few.
Compared with previous financial bills, work on the sandbox draft appears to be progressing quickly, suggesting that both the administrative and legislative bodies recognize the urgency of establishing a specially designed mechanism for testing new products and supporting the related ecosystem.
However, two major adjustments were made to the draft bill approved by lawmakers, compared with the original version proposed by the Executive Yuan.
First, lawmakers extended the experimental period for fintech developers to as long as 36 months, compared with the 18 months proposed by the Executive Yuan, making it the longest among nations with similar programs.
Clearly, the longer experimentation period aims to help developers deal with policy uncertainty while related regulations await review by authorities. It also gives developers more time to improve their products, reducing potential risks in commercializing new ideas.
Second, because the qualifications of fintech developers interested in the sandbox must be reviewed by a special committee, lawmakers are concerned about the composition of the committee and have requested that half of the committee comprise academics and experts.
On the one hand, lawmakers want the committee to review qualifications with objectivity, free from any interference from administrative agencies or established financial institutions. On the other hand, the draft welcomes more fintech developers to Taiwan, ensuring that promising innovation and creativity will not be stifled.
An important lesson from the legal framework created two years ago for third-party payment businesses is that legislation cannot provide all the answers for a fast-changing financial landscape, because it is such a time-consuming process.
In retrospect, the detrimental effect of bureaucratic indolence and legislative inefficiency in the process of pushing through legislation on third-party mobile payments only harmed domestic e-commerce operators, as their stronger foreign rivals were already knocking on consumers’ doors.
This time, there are promising signs of cooperation from both ruling party and opposition lawmakers in pressuring the Financial Supervisory Commission to move full-steam ahead on the sandbox legislation.
As the financial industry upgrades its infrastructure and provides new and more efficient services, there will be additional room for improvement and a demand for new technologies, such as big data, artificial intelligence and blockchain.
Although quantifying the sandbox initiative’s benefits might be difficult, it will be clear in two to three years’ time. Additional effort is needed — no one should give up on the last mile.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing