TV program fuels north versus south stereotypes

Just as the Michelin Guide controversy had run its course on social media, Disney+’s drama series Women In Taipei has ignited a new wave of discussion about stereotypical depictions of the differences between northern and southern Taiwan. As only three episodes have aired so far — with the plot involving a woman from Tainan moving to Taipei for work — it is still too early to jump to any conclusions. However, as Disney+ series have dealt with stereotypes associated with Taipei and Tainan before, the show has provided Internet users with fresh material for trolling and could generate further debate as it continues. Provided by an over-the-top media service, Women In Taipei has become a hot topic as it not only presents stereotypes of northern and southern identity, but also leads to the formation of ideologies regarding regional differences in Taiwan via subjective perceptions. Heated online discussions about the north and south come and go like flu waves: sporadic, but sometimes seasonal. From the quality of sidewalks and the way locals eat tomatoes, to every aspect of life, the debates have showcased the regional differences caused by material conditions and history after decades of development. Embedded with personal judgements, these differences quickly became points of friction causing fights online. There is no doubt that these differences could be measured with statistics and other indicators, but no one looks at the data when engaging in a fight of words and opinions for a moment’s pleasure. Leaving aside what the indicators are — mainly resource allocation and policies — it would be easier to draw conclusions to explain the difference between the ideologies of people who prefer the north over the south, or vice versa, using identity construction and stereotypes. In the online arguments, people from Taipei are often described as “residents of Tian Long Guo

By Chang Yueh-han 張約翰

EDITORIAL CARTOON

EDITORIAL CARTOON

Conjuring company profits from thin air can make capital disappear

What is a profit? A recent ill-tempered television appearance by the cofounder of home-flipper Opendoor Technologies, Keith Rabois, showed just how far the world has drifted from a common understanding of earnings. Rabois, a Miami venture capitalist, was irritated by his interlocutor’s (not unreasonable) suggestion that Opendoor is loss-making. Net losses total US$1.7 billion since inception, according to the latest accounts, and the quarter that just ended is likely to be ugly due to falling house prices. However, on a “per-home basis” — also known as a “contribution margin,” which excludes groupwide costs such as marketing and technology development — Opendoor has consistently made money for years, Rabois said.* The clash reflects the extraordinary proliferation of alternative financial performance measures during an era of “free money,” when investors were focused on top-line growth over bottom-line earnings. Opendoor is far from alone. Non-standard financial metrics are widespread in private equity buyouts and among start-ups that report losses under normal accounting, but they are also used by almost all S&P 500 companies. British annual reports include 16 such figures on average, the British Financial Reporting Council found. One of the favorites is adjusted earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization, also known as “eventually busted, interesting theory, deeply aspirational.” Which numbers should investors actually rely upon? It is increasingly hard to know. While these alternative figures can provide a more complete and meaningful picture than a regular profit and loss statement, they are not recognized by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or the International Financial Reporting Standards used outside the US. Not surprisingly, they tend to make earnings appear higher than they otherwise would, and can even magically turn an accounting loss into an adjusted profit. Remember WeWork’s infamous community-adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), which stripped out swathes of the office provider’s expenses? The

By Chris Bryant

Why ‘villainous’ business behavior had made a return in the US

Are successful businesspeople more like heroes or villains? In fictional accounts, one can find plenty of examples of each, from Charles Dickens’ miserly Ebenezer Scrooge to Ayn Rand’s rugged individualist entrepreneur John Galt. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby Tom Buchanan represents privileged old money, with its ruthlessness and incapacity for empathy, whereas Jay Gatsby is a self-made millionaire with no shortage of sentimentality and idealism. One finds the same distinctions in social science depictions of entrepreneurs. Political economist Joseph Schumpeter and his followers viewed entrepreneurs as the engines of growth, the heroic figures who delivered “gales of creative destruction.” By contrast, Frederick Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England heaped scorn on British industrialists who pushed their workers not just into poverty, but into inhumane working and living conditions. However, he and Karl Marx later made the two roles an essential part of their theory of capitalism: Ruthless businesspeople exploit workers, but also unleash innovation and growth, ultimately transforming society. These conflicting depictions reflect society’s complex views of business. Obviously, it would be naive to expect all businesspeople to be either heroes or villains. Like most people, they are often both. Many names that are now associated with philanthropy or higher education originally belonged to the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. Industrial magnates such as John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt showed no compunction about intimidating and acquiring rivals to monopolize their respective markets and increase prices. They were also downright brutal — and sometimes murderous — toward any workers who had the temerity to ask for higher pay or better conditions. Stanford University founder Leland Stanford was probably even worse. Not only did he and his associates corner the railway construction industry on the US’ Pacific coast; they also concocted a scheme to get taxpayers

By Daron Acemoglu

EDITORIAL: On the fishing list of shame again

As the absurd debate about whether eating Taiwanese seafood is a “luxury” dies down, a far more serious problem regarding the industry lingers: On Wednesday last week, the nation’s seafood products were for the third straight year placed on the List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, published by the US Department of Labor. The victims are an estimated 35,000 migrant workers who toil on the world’s second-largest fishing fleet. Taiwan’s reputation as a maritime slave driver remains a persistent blight, despite widespread international reporting and purported government measures to curb the abuse. Of course, not all employers are bad actors: For instance, the crew members of a vessel that had been adrift for several weeks after its captain died have told reporters that he had been “very kind” to them. However, the details of the US report suggest that not much has changed in general. Employment agencies continue to deceive workers, and require them to pay exorbitant fees that send them into debt to work on fishing vessels. The mariners remain at sea for months at a time, where they are often brutally overworked and underpaid, while not having enough to eat or drink, and are subject to physical and verbal abuse. The allegations are not new and fresh cases continue to be uncovered. The question is: What is being done? As Greenpeace reported on Thursday: “The Taiwanese government has taken incremental steps to address the issue, which have so far failed to disrupt the practice.” The Council of Agriculture in late 2020 began working with experts on a comprehensive action plan after Taiwan was put on the forced labor list for the first time, but the plan was approved only in May and the changes are still being implemented. The goals include increasing government oversight, boosting

Beijing’s goals remain unclear

The 73rd National Day of the People’s Republic of China on Saturday provided reason to reflect on its global ambitions. China’s future remains mired in inevitable challenges and has the greatest potential, depending on what its intentions are. Growing mid-sized and small powers look to China as a source of economic and financial salvation, not for the security of its ideological superiority. Beijing’s intentions are confusing and contradictory: It is firm in its quest to shape an alternative global order, but its methods continue to alienate the international community and fuel uncertainty. If China chooses a low-key path to achieve the “Chinese Dream” by 2049 — gradually transitioning toward an open and democratic nation — the returns would be greater and faster than its current approach. The US might be late to the game and at times dysfunctional in facing China and defending its global leadership, but it still holds a more persuasive card in calling for global commitment in projecting the common fear of Beijing and in supporting Washington’s entrenched values. Geopolitical realities mean that China will forever have to contend with threats from its east, southeast and even an uncertain north from Russia. The US, on the other hand, would only need to contend with fish and hurricanes to its west and east in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. Until and unless China drastically increases its power projection and capacity to capably challenge the US’ power structure right at its doorstep, it would remain secondary to Washington’s military supremacy and dominance for the next century at least. It presents a new quandary, where Beijing has the economic momentum of volume and size, but to have staying power, it requires a new game of values and conviction of principles to persuade and enforce. China needs the West more than the West needs it. Beijing

By Collins Chong Yew Keat

Real-estate crisis test for China

After posting record-high trade surpluses in 2020 and last year on the back of global demand for COVID-19 pandemic-related supplies, China’s economic growth this year has been the slowest among Asia’s developing economies. China’s economic slowdown can be attributed to multiple factors, but instead of tackling the root causes of the slowdown, Beijing has turned to the easiest approach — stimulating the real-estate sector. After all, it was the booming real-estate industry that saved China from an economic hard landing during the 2008 financial crisis, which left many countries underwater for a decade. Back then, China pumped 4 trillion yuan (US$562 billion at the current exchange rate) into the economy to keep it afloat. Most of the funds were funneled to the real-estate sector, directly and indirectly, regardless of the original funding objectives. The stimulus has led to a 20-year housing market boom. China’s real-estate sector, which had its beginnings in the 1990s, is a fairly new creature compared with its counterparts in other countries. However, in the course of its 30-year growth, the sector has evolved from a temporary and experimental tool intended to relieve the government of its burden to house public employees to a mighty economic powerhouse that made up at least 30 percent of China’s GDP at the time the pandemic hit. However, the industry changed course soon afterward and its downturn became obvious in the second half of 2020, along with an overall economic deterioration. Under mounting economic pressure, the Chinese government turned its magic wand to its old toolbox — the property sector — for much-needed economic vigor, waiting for the 2008 miracle to repeat itself. However, this time around, the expectation will likely turn into a great disappointment. A widely held view among economists is that China’s property sector is financially choked by the

By Daniel Jia

Effects of police law change to be seen

The Legislative Yuan has passed an amendment to the Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons (警械使用條例), allowing police officers greater freedom to use firearms. This is a big step forward, but only time will tell whether officers can truly be at ease. Article 4 of the act states that police may use their firearms under seven circumstances, but the descriptions are mostly abstract. Phrases such as “extreme mishap” or “public order” are hardly applicable to specific occasions, and have been widely criticized. For this reason, drawing on the principle of proportionality, the amendment stipulates a hierarchy of firearm use in accordance the extent to which a law enforcement officer is threatened. In particular, when police officers are under threat of injury or death, any kind of approved firearms that would prevent danger would be open to use. Under life-threatening circumstances, police officers may use their weapons without first firing a warning shot. The amendment does not mean police officers would not be held legally accountable. A firearm-related death as a result of the actions of law enforcement still violates the right to life. Thus the problem arises: whether a police officer abides by the law when performing their duties, and whether their actions cause a preventable, yet intentional death. Nevertheless, no matter how definite the circumstances of using firearms could be specified, it is impossible to take into account every likely scenario. In the end, whether a police officer would be indicted depends on a prosecutor’s perception of the incident. The main purpose of the amendment is to clarify the ambiguous judgement criteria, and make them more specific and objective. Currently, even if a prosecutor decides that an officer’s use of a gun was in accordance with the principle of proportionality, police officers might have to deal with legal compensation in

By Wu Ching-chin 吳景欽

EDITORIAL CARTOON

EDITORIAL CARTOON

Molly Russell was trapped by the cruel algorithms of Pinterest and Instagram

As the inquest into the death of Molly Russell ground to its conclusion on Friday, what kept flashing like a faulty neon sign in one’s mind was a rhetorical question asked by Alexander Pope in 1735: “Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?” For Pope it was a reference to “breaking on the wheel,” a medieval form of torture in which victims had their long bones broken by an iron bar while tied to a Catherine wheel, named after St Catherine who was executed in this way. For those at the inquest, the metaphor’s significance must have been unmistakable, for they were listening to an account of how an innocent and depressed 14-year-old girl was broken by a remorseless, contemporary Catherine wheel — the artificial intelligence-powered recommendation engines of two social media companies, Instagram and Pinterest. These sucked her into a vortex of, as the coroner put it, “images, video clips and text concerning or concerned with self-harm, suicide or that were otherwise negative or depressing in nature ... some of which were selected and provided without Molly requesting them.” Some of this content romanticized acts of self-harm by young people on themselves, while “other content sought to isolate and discourage discussion with those who may have been able to help.” His verdict was not suicide, but that “Molly Rose Russell died from an act of self-harm whilst suffering from depression and the negative effects of online content.” This inquest had a wider significance than that of a belated — Molly died in November 2017 — recognition of a harrowing injustice. In the first place, the coroner’s verdict was a world first, in that it explicitly linked social-media recommendation engines as a causal factor in a death. Second, his inquiry broke new procedural ground by requiring representatives of the two US companies involved

By John Naughton

British bungling makes it hard to be an Anglophile

The British government was hoping to salvage some economic credibility thanks to its abrupt and inglorious U-turn on giant unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy. Nevertheless, the destruction of the UK’s age-old reputation for reserve and pragmatism, its image as a nation worthy of admiration and emulation, seems irreversible. To be sure, nationalist histories in India, China, Egypt and many other countries long depicted the British ruling class as predatory and callously incompetent, plundering foreign lands for its wealth at home while inflicting immiseration on those it ruled abroad. Yet there always existed, beneath such resentment, a grudging regard for the inhabitants of a tiny island that had managed to conquer much of the world. Even the most strident anti-colonialists in newly independent nations in Asia and Africa diligently copied the UK’s democratic and legal institutions, the typography of its newspapers, the cut of its bespoke suits. Generations of Anglophiles across the world dreamed of an England in which power and wealth combined perfectly with grace and style. In their awestruck vision, the winners of modern history comported themselves with seemingly effortless poise. The sleek daring of Aston Martin, the subtle glamor of Burberry and smooth-tongued prescriptions of the Economist —arguably, no other country has offered so many irresistible models to aspiring movers and shakers around the world. It is now clear that the UK’s exuberantly successful branding postponed a necessary reckoning with its unproductive economy. Indeed, confronted with it, some of the country’s most powerful and influential people began entrenching the current regime of deception and self-deception. In the 2000s, as the “war on terror” began, the UK rushed to offer its long experience of subduing alien peoples to the US. In Afghanistan and then Iraq and Libya, the UK’s claims to imperial-era expertise were exposed as calamitously bogus. However, hubris and

By Pankaj Mishra

The populist climate threat

Reactionary populism is now the biggest obstacle to tackling climate change. With outright climate denial no longer an option, populist politicians have increasingly positioned themselves as climate doubters and delayers, and this new approach is proving to be quite insidious. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global greenhouse-gas emissions must peak within three years to keep the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C target in reach; by slowing effective action, the tactics of today’s populists are becoming an existential threat. This trend is reversible, but it is tenacious. Following former US president Donald Trump’s dismantling of the US’ climate commitments, the administration of US President Joe Biden has managed to pass landmark climate legislation, despite notable headwinds. However, opportunities for populist climate spoilers remain. A recent study in Nature shows that, even though supporters of climate policies vastly outnumber their opponents nationwide, most Americans believe the opposite to be true. Given this “false social reality,” the climate legislation promises to be a wedge issue in next month’s midterm elections. Perhaps even more significant is Brazil, where reactionary populism threatens to become normalized under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. It is no coincidence that Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, sees Brazil’s election as an inflection point for the international system: in his words, the “second most important election in the world.” There are multiple reasons why climate action is an especially appealing target for aspiring and incumbent authoritarians, but none has anything to do with the climate itself. The first reason is the perceived cost. Even though decarbonizing and building more resilience into the economy will ultimately be much cheaper than covering the costs of a runaway climate crisis, such outlays will forever be exposed to political opportunists’ bad-faith attacks. Moreover, populists will smear policies geared toward international accords like the 2015

By Izabella Teixeira, Ana Toni and Laurence Tubiana

EDITORIAL: NCC must act on telecom merger

The proposed merger of Taiwan Mobile and Taiwan Star Telecom would give Taiwan Mobile “extra bandwidth,” which its competitors say is unfair and against regulations, but returning the bandwidth could affect Taiwan Mobile’s subscribers, creating a dilemma for the National Communications Commission (NCC). At the heart of the dispute is spectrum distribution of prime frequency bands below 1 gigahertz (GHz), which could lead to major changes in the nation’s telecom industry, as following the merger, Taiwan Mobile would own a much bigger slice of the available spectrum than the Regulations for Administration of Mobile Broadband Businesses (行動寬頻業務管理規則) allow. The telecom is set to control a 60 megahertz (MHz) band of the 700MHz to 900MHz band, exceeding the limit of 50MHz — or one-third of the total 150MHz auctioned. Rivals Chunghwa Telecom and Far EasTone Telecommunications own 40MHz and 50MHz in the “golden band” respectively. The new Taiwan Mobile would enjoy the benefits of significant cost savings in base station deployment, while optimizing its 5G network, given the low-band’s special properties. Industry association GSMA says that lower frequencies have superior propagation characteristics, and to provide the equivalent 5G speed coverage of a mid-band such as 700Mhz, operators within the 1.8GHz spectrum would need three to four times the number of cell sites. At a public hearing about the merger on Thursday, Chunghwa Telecom and Far EasTone, who had both earlier vied for the coveted frequencies in high-priced auctions, urged Taiwan Mobile to return the 10MHz, so that it could be put up for auction again. They also called on the commission to uphold the “legitimate expectation” created by the mobile broadband regulations. The companies said they had invested heavily on spectrum acquisition during the 4G and 5G auctions, while Taiwan Mobile skipped two rounds, citing stiff competition. Taiwan Mobile has insisted that it is allowed

The Liberty Times Editorial: Nation must unite to defend Taiwan

In an interview broadcast on Sept. 18 by the US news program 60 Minutes, US President Joe Biden said that US forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. It was his latest and most definite affirmative statement as to whether US armed forces would help defend Taiwan. Since last year, Biden has made four similar pronouncements on the issue. Biden, who served two terms as chairman of the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and two as US vice president, voted in favor of the Taiwan Relations Act more than 40 years ago and has visited the nation. His record shows that his remarks convey a heartfelt promise he intends to keep. Given that the US is the strongest long-term external contributor to Taiwan’s security, Taiwanese obviously hope that its military would assist if China tries to invade. Nevertheless, Russia’s war in Ukraine shows that self-defense is the best protection when a country is invaded, so the most important factor is whether Taiwanese are willing and capable of resisting an enemy alone. The situation Taiwan now faces is that China has openly declared its intention to annex the nation. If Beijing thinks its fist is big enough, it might be willing to take military risks. However, it hopes to achieve its goal at the lowest cost, including through “gray zone” tactics that fall short of war or armed conflict. These methods attempt to relax Taiwanese society’s vigilance and disintegrate resistance from within, allowing China to force Taiwan to surrender without a fight. Therefore, while strengthening the nation’s self-defense capabilities, Taiwanese must also bolster their psychological defenses. Taiwanese have made some progress in this respect. US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan on Aug. 2 and 3 triggered a military response from China, which took the opportunity to rehearse various

Taiwan should regulate Internet

The National Communications Commission on June 29 passed the draft digital intermediary service act (數位中介服務法草案), and has since held three public briefings on it. The draft has raised concerns that it would not only fall short of its objectives of reining in the world’s technology giants, but that it would also hobble the nation’s booming digital industry. The Cabinet was eventually left with little alternative but to postpone the introduction of the law. The unregulated anarchy of the Internet is problematic, especially now that a large number of Internet news media are disseminating defamation or threats as clickbait, essentially making them complicit in promoting cyberbullying. The creation of online disinformation and Internet rumormongering every time an opportunity to manipulate public opinion presents itself is pernicious and endangers social stability. Everyone should have the right to the freedom of opinion and expression, but should bear in mind that freedom of speech does not protect fictional sources. One thing must also be clear: The purpose of controlling fake news is to safeguard the rights and interests of the public, it is not about protecting the rights and interests of certain large enterprises. Even the US, where democracy and freedom are put on a pedestal, regulates the Internet. This control operates through a complex set of private mediation mechanisms that are legally binding. Other countries, too, such as the UK, Germany and France, continue to promote legislation against harmful or hate speech. Is Taiwan really going to shy away from regulating unlawful speech or monitoring transnational digital platforms for fear of incurring suspicions that freedom of speech is being curtailed and of censorship? Wei Si-yuan works in the information technology industry. Translated by Lin Lee-kai

By Wei Si-yuan 魏思源

Stand with Asuncion, as it stands with Taipei

For years, Paraguay has maintained friendly relations with Taiwan, thanks to its long-term ruling party, the conservative National Republican Association — Colorado Party. Even if a candidate from the Authentic Radical Liberal Party were elected president, it would not hold a majority in the country. Paraguay has therefore contributed to a unique situation in South America: It is a right-wing country among mostly leftist governments. Last month in an interview with the Financial Times, Paraguayan President Mario Abdo Benitez appealed to Taiwan for a US$1 billion investment in his country so that he could resist the “enormous” pressure to switch diplomatic recognition to China. Taiwan should indeed devote more efforts to Paraguay, which has never asked Taiwan for a favor before. Besides, Taiwan received a generous gift from Abdo Benitez’s predecessor, Horacio Cartes: a free-trade agreement. Given that Paraguay is a member of Mercosur, the Southern Common Market, the trade agreement with Paraguay would connect Taiwan with the South American trade bloc. That was in 2017, when China imposed the first wave of import bans on products from Taiwan. Moreover, on July 16, the Taiwanese embassy in Paraguay announced that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Chinese International Economic Cooperation Association organized their “Taiwan Economic and Business Cooperation Mission to Central and South America.” The delegation visited Paraguay and was received by Abdo Benitez. This means that opportunities for investment in the market are all in place. Despite being surrounded by China’s diplomatic allies, Paraguay offers Taiwan a gateway to the region. South American countries do Paraguay a big favor, allowing Taiwanese businesspeople channels for export and opportunities for investment. Which of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies would venture to do this? Of course, in terms of market size, it is impossible for Taiwan to compete with China, but it can offer military assistance to Paraguay

By Wang Wen-sheng 王文勝

EDITORIAL CARTOON

EDITORIAL CARTOON