The problems with the electronic toll collection (ETC) system have the public in an uproar. Over the past few years, the build-operate-transfer (BOT) concept has been too costly for the public in terms of both fees and the time spent learning about the concept. The question of whether these high costs can be converted into social capital, so the public really can participate in the public affairs management of the BOT concept while at the same time gaining an understanding of this new kind of national governance, interests me very much.
The BOT concept is promoted by neoliberals for urban development. Simply speaking, it means that the government uses resources paid for by the people and controlled in legislation, and then takes advantage of civil society's energy and flexibility to invest in technology and provide manpower and/or capital, thereby improving the efficiency of national development and achieving national goals.
Examples of this are Taipei 101's monopoly of the Taipei skyline, the highspeed railway's monopoly of public movement, the Kaohsiung subway system's monopoly, Taipei Sports Arena's operations monopoly and the ETC's monopoly on highways.
The state's role is to distribute these resource monopolies. When the state is incapable of effectively implementing and financing projects in a timely manner, it passes construction on to private enterprise, and lets those enterprises operate the facility as a time-limited monopoly before transferring the monopoly and construction rights back to the state. The public gets to enjoy the results of the construction, the state gets to enjoy a tangible political achievement as well as the remaining value of the project, and the capitalists who developed the facility get to enjoy the profits of a monopoly.
The BOT concept seems to outline a blueprint for a new and perfect method of national governance. The absurd thing is that the role and functions of the state gradually decline in such a partnership with the public. It is not the state's power that declines, but rather its influence and its ability to promote social justice.
The Taiwanese version of the BOT concept, however, clearly shows that the innate character of capitalists is monopolistic and exploitative. This makes it difficult to maintain expectations that everyone will be a winner in a partnership between state and civil society -- government capitalists, and the general public. Judging from the ETC situation, it is already clear who is the winner and who the loser.
Capitalists have "humbly" pointed out that they have invested NT$3 billion (US$900 million) in the construction of the ETC system and that they have done more than was required in the government contract by providing 200,000 on-board units (OBU) for promotional purposes. Together with the forecast loss of NT$800 million in the first year of operations, total losses may reach NT$1.2 billion, making the capitalists look like losers.
The toll-booth workers are also surplus to the capitalists' labor needs. Those who've lost their jobs have become losers. For paying users, buying an OBU may turn out to be a waste of money. Those who are caught in the traffic jams created after lanes were dedicated to the ETC system or who were fined for going through the ETC lane by mistake are of course also losers.
From the government's perspective, the complaints initiated by the extra expenses mean that the public has resisted installing OBUs in their cars. They're also helpless and cannot do anything about the capitalists.
The government, however, must bear the brunt of the complaints incited by this policy, which means its administrative efficiency will be a loser, too. Police have now taken over the duties of the toll-booth workers, so from the perspective of the general public, they now have to pay for all the warning and information signs put up by the highway engineering division. All those who never use the highway network must also pay this external cost, turning them into yet another loser.
Since the Taiwan Administrative Court revoked the Taiwan Area National Freeway Bureau's choice of Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co for the ETC project, it is possible that the capitalists will ask for an enormous sum in compensation from the government. In the end, it is once again the general public that has to foot the bill.
If everyone is a loser in this zero-sum game, we must ask why the decision to play was taken in the first place. What if the game is called off? If we ask who is the winner, I think the history of capitalism in Taiwan shows us that the answer of course is -- the capitalists. It brings us back to the innate character of capitalists -- monopoly, exploitation and accumulation -- and the visible achievements that the other party, the government, was considering -- votes.
We hope the government will at least be able to continue to play its role of purveyor of justice for the public as a whole, instead of shaking the state to its core trying to try to placate critics or come up with timely political achievements for the sake of opinion polls.
The government still has a few more chips to play in this zero-sum game. The profits that the capitalists are really hoping for are the hundreds of billions of dollars in business opportunities that will follow in the wake of the toll payment system -- the monopoly on a platform for traffic payment flows, any resulting form of electronic payment system, and the monopolistic power and relative advantage to decide which card issuers to cooperate with when the payment platform has been decided on.
This monopolistic power is a guarantee of their profit, and that guarantee will depend on the government's negotiations with the capitalists.
The public's complaints regarding the ETC system are a good reference. We should take some more time and expand participation in the BOT process to let the public as a whole participate in this public affairs policy process.
Wang Wen-cheng is an assistant professor in the Institute of Public Affairs Management at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS