The main characteristics of good corporate behavior are a company that protects the interests of its shareholders and board members who act in good faith when establishing a company's operational strategies and overseeing major capital expenditures.
Sadly, none of these characteristics were present at Asia Pacific Broadband Telecom Co (APBT).
As long as it remains under the notorious Rebar Asia Pacific Group -- which is now infamous for its poor track record in corporate governance -- the key question that will need to be answered is not why or how the company managed to perform so badly, but rather how APBT was able to exploit the legal loopholes that allowed this situation to obtain in the first place.
Founded in May 2000 with a paid-in capital of NT$65.68 billion (US$2 billion), the fixed-line operator chose not to become a public company. The reason? The law says that an unlisted company does not have to publicly disclose its financial statements.
Perhaps the most troubling issue that has come into focus is Article 156-4 of the Company Law (
Article 156-4 was added in November 2001 -- a year after the company was created. However, the previous regulation, which took effect in November 2000 and was valid at the time, stipulated that companies with a capitalization of NT$500 million had to issue public shares.
So shares went public. What has yet to be determined is whether the scandal resulted from lax management within the government, corporate bad practices or simply shrewdness on APBT's part.
APBT is unlikely to change its non-listed status so long as Rebar family still controls 22 of the company's 33-seat board. With Rebar Group's obvious control of the board, no resolution will be adopted that would prevent Rebar from usurping APBT's capital to invest in other affiliates. And it certainly will feel no obligation to ensure accurate disclosure and transparency.
The news on Friday that APBT had decided to book some NT$30 billion in asset impairment -- most of which was derived from the purchase of junk bonds from other Rebar affiliates -- did not come as a surprise. With that, APBT would see its net value decline to around NT$5 per share, from NT$9.18 in 2005.
Now that the government has appointed the Small Business Integrated Assistance Foundation and KPMG International to audit APBT's finances, it is hoped that accountants will help clarify the methods used by management to determine the fair value of those impaired assets and enable investors to understand how reliable the management's assumptions and calculations are.
Despite this in-depth look at the company, APBT will be unable to continue operations absent changes in its board. The government should pressure the Rebar Group to relinquish its board control to allow such changes to happen.
While the government should act to plug the legal loopholes and punish government-appointed board directors for their lax governance, it should not go as far as taking over the company, as it might have done in the past. Whatever the government does, it should do at arm's length.
Safeguard shareholder benefits, protecting the interests of subscribers and securing the working rights of APBT employees are all important objectives. But above all this, the government's main responsibility is not to board members, subscribers or investors.
It is to taxpayers.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS