After a consensus in the third meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the Ministry of Economic Affairs announced on June 30 that Chinese investment would be allowed in Taiwan.
This violates both the Constitution and the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) and could damage national security and infringe on the rights of Taiwanese.
First, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government enacted rules based on the Chiang-Chen agreement, but according to Constitutional Interpretation No. 329, an international agreement concluded between Taiwan and foreign countries or international organizations that involves “important issues of the Nation or rights and duties of the people” should be sent to the legislature for deliberation no matter what the agreement is called.
Calling the result of the cross-strait meeting a consensus, the government signed this agreement without divulging the implications for the rights and duties of the public. Taiwan’s government not only failed to ensure that the rules are transparent but also avoided legislative deliberation and implemented them by describing them as an administrative order. This is also a violation of the Constitution and the principles of democracy, legal reservation and the separation of powers enshrined within.
Second, according to Article 13 of the rules, representatives of Chinese companies who have Chinese nationality and who have been approved by the Taiwanese authorities may take up positions as directors or supervisors of Taiwanese companies.
However, according to Article 72 of the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, “Unless permitted by the competent authorities, no individual, juristic person, organization, or other institution of the Mainland Area may become a member of or hold a position in any juristic person, organization, or other institution of the Taiwan Area.”
Since permission is granted only on a case-by-case basis, the rules violate the intent of the parent law.
Third, Article 4 of the rules states that a Chinese company does not need to apply for government permission if its share stake in a Taiwanese company is less than 10 percent. In other words, if a Chinese firm wants to take control of a Taiwanese firm, the former only needs to purchase the latter’s shares through six subsidiaries, each with 9 percent of the shares. Then, without application or review, it can quietly gain control of the Taiwanese company. If this is the case, how will the government protect local companies and investors?
Fourth, the government has opened more than 190 areas to Chinese investment, including telecommunications, computer peripherals, medicine and medical equipment, ports, airports and other controversial sectors. These categories relate to privacy, health and even national security. The flow of Chinese capital into Taiwanese markets may also lead to technology outflow, stock market manipulation and hikes in housing prices. But does the government have any contingency plans?
I urge the government to act in accordance with the law, and hope that the legislature will be able to better monitor and respond to this situation for the sake of the rights and benefits of everyone.
Huang Di-ying is president of Taiwan Youth Intellectuals.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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