The seriousness of business-politician conspiracies is not the only thing to come to light with the recent row over legislators pressuring banks to invest in certain venture capital companies. The incident also shows the unwholesome side-effects of undue government intervention in economic activities.
For this kind of pressure to succeed, there has to be at least two factors closely related to inappropriate government intervention in economic activities. One is the government's management style over state-owned banks, or banks where the government holds a large portion of shares. The other factor is the intervention of government authorities in bank operations.
For historical reasons, Taiwan has a large number of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Even though Taiwan has been following the global privatization trend, there are still a large number of SOEs and the government remains the biggest shareholder in several companies that are nominally privatized.
The government has yet to establish a reasonable system to manage these businesses. As a result, many enterprises seem to be private and therefore not subject to government intervention and the supervision of elected officials. In reality, these companies still have to follow the orders of government authorities and lawmakers.
It is quite possible that this situation can lead to even more political intervention and consequent irregularities than in the past, when the companies were plain SOEs and thus everything followed government rules.
Under the current circum-stances, government authorities hold important personnel appointment powers at these companies and so have influence over policymaking. This kind of influence is not defined by law. It is wielded and peddled in private. The influence also makes it easier for lawmakers to pressure these businesses indirectly through interpellations, budget reviews and the government authorities concerned.
Therefore, if the government cannot effect genuine privatization soon, then it should quickly set up regulations to free companies in which it has a controlling stake from political influences. The current "let's pretend privatization" approach no longer works.
Another key lies in the rule authorizing government agencies to review banks' investments. While the original purpose may have been to prevent banks from making bad investments, the rule could become an excuse for banks to shirk responsibility. In state-owned banks and banks in which government shares account for the majority of the stock, government authorities are the big boss. For projects conducted under pressure from -- and reviewed by -- the big boss, it is easy for those following orders to shirk their responsibilities. As a result, it is easier for them to succumb to pressure from government agencies or elected representatives.
Much remains to be debated over whether or not the government should intervene in economic activities. Many scholars believe that the government should intervene in situations where market mechanisms have failed and that the government should set up and maintain various systems to safeguard economic competition.
But most scholars do not support direct government intervention in business because it will lead to inefficiency and irregularities. The uproar over legislators pressuring banks is just the latest incentive for the government to speed up improvements in the privatization of SOEs and the liberalization of financial management.
Otherwise, not only will economic efficiency be low, but the political milieu -- nurtured by illegal interests -- will also become more corrupt.
Chen Po-chih is a professor of economics at National Taiwan University.
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.