State-owned enterprises — the target of much criticism lately — have become a byword for “inefficiency.” To change that perception and improve their efficiency, they should go back to basics, so their businesses can be run normally and rationally, and without political intervention.
On April 10, a special panel that was formed to improve the performance of state-run Taiwan Power Co and CPC Corp, Taiwan, held its first meeting. A member of the panel, General Chamber of Commerce vice chairman Wang Ying-chieh (王應傑), called for the rationalization of fuel and electricity prices. However, aside from reviewing these firms’ personnel and systems, the government should prevent elected representatives from asking the companies for money in the name of goodwill to local communities. Their requests for money may seem insignificant, but it shows the distorted business environment state-owned enterprises have to deal with.
What is needed is a clear separation of affairs. Electricity subsidies for the agricultural sector, local governments and schools should be budgeted by the respective governing authorities to avoid having representatives of state-owned enterprises obfuscating and talking about “policy factors” every time the budget is discussed. It has never been clear what part of the system of these state-owned enterprises’ poor performance can be attributed to policy factors or to human error. Annual reviews of their performance are held, but they always end in the presentation of official documents that mean nothing.
The fact is the definition of the role of legislators is seriously flawed. On the one hand, they are responsible for monitoring the government’s budget; on the other, they are also the ones who often take advantage of state-owned enterprises. This is a very contradictory state of affairs. To strictly monitor the government’s spending, they should not tolerate any waste, but then they often ask state-owned enterprises for money so they can provide services for their supporters. If this situation does not change, the ubiquity of greedy lawmakers will remain the greatest burden of state-owned enterprises.
A state-owned enterprise is established for policy reasons, otherwise there would be no need for them. Since their task is policy-related, efficiency is not a priority, while personal relationships are. That always leaves a large gray area that those good at networking can take advantage of like fish in water. They rarely get caught, because everyone does the same thing. It may not be the best job in the world, but they never have to worry about going hungry. Everyone will eventually get their chance to “fish in troubled waters.” This is a common flaw of all state-owned enterprises.
Once state-owned enterprises perform poorly, they blame it on “policy factors.” This is an effective excuse because it is difficult to find the real cause. As a result, muddling through and mediocrity have become the norm. Every time a state-owned enterprise is criticized for its poor performance, it can always blame policy and avoid responsibility.
One can only lament the shortcomings of state-owned enterprises that are the result of policy factors. The premise for transforming these enterprises is to remove their policy-related duties. However, that leaves the question of whether there is any reason for their existence without such duties. This question is the key to all their problems.
It is clear that all policy-related duties that are irrelevant to the core business of a state-owned enterprise should be removed. If that is not done, then privatization is preferable to maintaining the present mode. That would also comply with the logic of capitalism, and would be the right prescription for dealing with the malady.
Chu Yen-kuei is a lecturer of law at National Open University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS