Amid a management dispute over the Taiwanese-Chinese Shin Kong Place joint-venture in Beijing, Chinese Beijing Hualian Group forcibly took over ownership of the department store by bringing in more than 200 "security officers" before firing all Taiwanese executives without warning, accusing them of accepting bribes relating to the construction of the store.
Steven Wu (吳昕達), general manager of Shin Kong Place, was asked to get off a plane and detained in Beijing. After massive media coverage of the dispute, China's Taiwan Affairs Office broke with its ridiculous but established practice of not meddling in "business disputes," and Wu was able to return to Taiwan after five days of house arrest.
Taiwanese were utterly astonished by Beijing Hualian's illegal and predatory behavior because they don't understand the facts about investing in China.
As a matter of fact, thousands of cases in which joint ventures were seized by the Chinese party share a similar process: A joint-venture is established, the Chinese party breaks the contract, then looks for faults, people from the other party are detained and the Chinese party takes over complete ownership.
The TAO said the dispute was simply a misunderstanding.
But if this is the case, shouldn't Beijing Hualian Group unconditionally return the management rights to Shin Kong?
The Taiwan Affairs Office stressed that it would protect the legal rights and interests of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople in accordance with the Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Investment by Compatriots From Taiwan, and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) also indicated that the dispute should be settled as soon as possible.
We will see if the Chinese government will deal with Beijing Hualian according to the law. As a proof of its sincerity and resolve, the Chinese Communist Party's central leadership should prevent similar cases from happening again.
Take my personal experience for example.
On Feb. 21, 1999, during Lunar New Year, my Chinese manager colluded with another company, which claimed to be the industry's biggest in China, and brought more than 50 workers to my factory to cut the telephone lines.
After the security guard refused to open the gate, two people pretending to be judges appeared.
In the end, all manufacturing equipment, raw materials, finished and semi-finished products, computers and account books were driven off in 16 huge trucks in a single day.
Public Security officers refused to accept the case because they didn't believe that robbery could take place in broad daylight.
The director of the Yanjiao Development District located in the east of Beijing said: "We cannot interfere because it is an economic dispute."
Robbery cases are left unsettled by the Public Security Bureau and there is nothing Taiwanese businesspeople can do about it.
My Chinese manager later became even more aggressive, bringing me to court for owing him US$78,000 and my company for owing him 500,000 yuan.
In private, the judge told him to raise the amount to US$100,000. I can only assume the extra US$22,000 was going to the judge. There was no receipt or any transfer records of the transaction.
The only evidence given was that "someone had heard William Kao mention it," someone of course being a friend of the manager. This meant that "proof was well established."
Since I am a Taiwanese businessman, they assumed that I would flee to Taiwan, so I would have been locked up until the debt was paid off.
Because the whole case had attracted a lot of attention, I was not sent to jail.
Eight years later, there still isn't the slightest possibility of justice being served.
The people responsible for the seizure of Taiwanese assets in China are not the stoolpigeons we hear about in the news, but the Chinese authorities
Because we cannot compete with public authorities, Taiwanese businesspeople are doomed to lose.
When something like this can happen in one of Taiwan's leading enterprises, it goes without saying that the situation is even worse for small and medium Taiwanese enterprises that have had their companies stolen from them.
William Kao is president of the Victims of Investment in China Association.
Translated by Ted Yang
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
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS