The Administrative Supreme Court has ruled that a new selection process shall choose a company for the freeway electronic toll collection (ETC) system because the original process was flawed.
The most urgent task is to find a way to complete the selection process -- not to debate whether the government should handle the project by itself, find another firm to run the ETC system, reopen the bidding process or abandon the project.
The Far Eastern Group's decision, however, to give its shares in Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co (FETC) to the government opens up new possibilities for the ETC project.
From a corporate perspective, the donation was a good way for the Far Eastern Group to limit the damage to its image from the flap over the ETC project. Whether the government should accept the donation remains to be seen. This involves questions of legality, nationalization, sustainable operations and the fairness of the selection process -- all of which must be handled with care.
Some worry that if government shares in FETC exceed 20 percent, then this will violate the Law for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (促進民間參與公共建設法). Article 4 of the law states that if the government or a government-owned enterprise makes an equity investment in, or donation to, a private institution, the total amount of the investment or donation must not exceed 20 percent of the institution's total capital or assets.
Since FETC is not a government-owned company, its donation should not violate the law. But if the government directly accepts a 55-percent share in FETC, the company would become a government-owned firm -- raising the question of whether it would still qualify as a bidder for the ETC project.
Questions have also been raised about the nationalization of FETC. From a policy perspective, the government should make clear whether nationalization of FETC would change the policy that the ETC project be a private sector endeavor. Since the project has had a major impact on private participation and investment in infrastructure projects, the government must clearly explain its policy and its stance on public participation.
As is common with transport companies, FETC sustained heavy losses during the start-up period. It will also need to make a big investment in replacing its systems in the future. If nationalized, FETC would be restricted by the government's budget procedures. What impact this would have on the company's ability to raise capital should be taken into account.
If the issues raised by nationalization are too complex, nothing is stopping the government from entering into negotiations with the Far Eastern Group to set up a public benefit fund or some other legal entity in order to accept the donation of shares. As long as that fund or entity does not accept government donations above a certain percentage, the nationalization issue would be irrelevant, and there would be no risk of violating the law.
Having a public interest institution take over the shares would also fulfill the Far Eastern Group's initial purpose, so chances are good that it would accept such a solution.
But turning FETC into a public institution would still leave the problem of raising the capital needed for sustainable operations.
How many public institutions have the ability and the financial credibility to participate in FETC's fundraising activities? Could FETC raise the necessary capital by finding new shareholders?
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) must quickly decide if it will accept the share donation and, if so, how and when it will do so. Dragging this decision out would only create more uncertainty about the selection process, raising more questions about the fairness of the process. It would also violate the Administrative Supreme Court's suggesion.
The ministry must deal with all the issues that may affect the selection process and find a way to win the trust of participants if it is to avoid creating a whole new controversy.
Huang Yu-lin is an associate professor in the department of civil engineering at National Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
There appears to be a growing view among leaders and leading thinkers in Taiwan that their words and actions have no influence over how China approaches cross-Strait relations. According to this logic, China’s actions toward Taiwan are guided by China’s unwavering ambition to assert control over Taiwan. Many also believe Beijing’s approach is influenced by China’s domestic politics. As the thinking goes, former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made a good faith effort to demonstrate her moderation on cross-Strait issues throughout her tenure. During her 2016 inaugural address, Tsai sent several constructive signals, including by acknowledging the historical fact of interactions and
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
HSBC Holdings successfully fought off a breakup campaign by disgruntled Asian investors in recent years. Now, it has announced a restructuring along almost the same east-west lines. The obvious question is why? It says it is designed to create a simpler, more efficient and dynamic company. However, it looks a lot like the bank is also facing up to the political reality of the growing schism between the US and China. A new structure would not dissolve HSBC’s geopolitical challenges, but it could give the bank better options to respond quickly if things worsen. HSBC spent 2022 battling to convince shareholders of