A recent series of events -- the government's investment in Taiwan Goal, the selling at a loss of Sino Swearingen Aircraft Corp and the privatization of the Grand Hotel -- has demonstrated that the only thing the government's single-minded pursuit of privatization has taught us is that power can be exchanged for money and that privatization makes it possible to evade surveillance.
The legislature and the Control Yuan are guardians of the public purse and they should cooperate in the exercise of constitutional duties.
Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (
However, should not the Ministry of National Defense's investment in a private company be first approved by the legislature? When it comes to a government-invested private firm, should not the legislature have the authority to monitor the government and therefore the company?
In 1991, academics from the Taipei Society published a report titled Deconstructing KMT-State Capitalism. The report underpinned the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) criticism of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) economic intervention during its rule. The subtitle of the report was "The privatization of Taiwan's government-owned enterprises" and it discussed the way privatization under KMT rule was used to transfer investments and conceal them behind the guise of a private business. This kind of situation has yet to end despite eight years of DPP rule.
Even worse, Taiwan Goal shows that the DPP is no better than the KMT and has tried to use public tax dollars to invest in a private company and prepare an exit strategy for pan-green VIPs.
The Taiwan Goal incident shows that in the eight years of DPP power the government's tendency to treat the public coffers as a private account has worsened. In addition, the government has established a new model of escaping surveillance through privatization.
In the Taipei Society report, there is clear opposition to the rule that only firms that have more than 50 percent of their capital coming from public investment can be labeled government enterprises because, even with less than half that amount, the government could still be the majority shareholder.
However, once the company is considered private, it can avoid government monitoring. Take Taiwan Goal for example: Even if the 15 percent shareholding held by the Ministry of Economic Affairs through Yao Hua Glass Co is disregarded, the Ministry of National Defense still controls 45 percent of shares. That would make the defense ministry the majority shareholder, so it should have authority over the company. However, the narrow definition of what constitutes a government enterprise protects Taiwan Goal from public scrutiny through the legislature or the Control Yuan.
The report also emphasizes that in large modern enterprises or publicly traded firms, shares are often widely dispersed. Sometimes controlling as little as 3 percent or 4 percent of shares is enough to be a majority shareholder.
The government has tried to use public funds to investments in so-called "private enterprises" in order to "privatize" and establish a network of political influence in business. Looking at the eight years of DPP government, we see that despite democratization, "KMT-state capitalism" has only changed colors.
Kuei Hung-chen is an assistant professor at Shih Hsin University and a research fellow at the National Policy Foundation's interior affairs division.
Translated by Angela Hung
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS