The tainted oil scandal involving Ting Hsin International Group (頂新國際集團) has not only dealt a heavy blow to the food industry, it has also threatened food safety and public health. Since the scandal broke, continued incompetence from the relevant government agencies has led to an active grassroots campaign to “shut down” Ting Hsin.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is focusing on the upcoming nine-in-one elections, so to minimize public unrest, it has put pressure on the company by forcing members of the Wei (魏) family, which runs Ting Hsin, to relinquish posts at Taipei Financial Center Corp (TFCC, 台北金融大樓公司), the firm which operates Taipei 101, and has asked that government-invested banks tighten their lending to the conglomerate.
While food safety has been the focus throughout the process of investigating the Wei family, the nation’s problem with financial controls has also come to light.
Generally speaking, Taiwanese financial controls are amazingly strict. In August, when a technology firm was accused of illegal financial dealings for issuing virtual currency, its chairman protested, saying that outside of Taiwan, such developments are known as “innovation.” In September, Apple launched its iPhone 6 smartphone, which includes a function called “Apple Pay.” Because it touches upon financial services, the function is currently unavailable in the nation. In addition, multiple layers of financial regulations mean that Taiwan falls far behind the Chinese market in the development of third-party payment solutions. All this results from Taiwan’s seemingly powerful financial supervisory agencies and mechanisms.
The revelation that Ting Hsin and the Wei family had such easy access to funds that enabled them to acquire companies and engage in real-estate speculation is a slap in the face of these financial supervisory agencies. The harder these agencies go after the Wei family now, the more obvious it becomes that their previous enforcement standards were inconsistent and that they neglected their duties.
Leave aside Minister of Finance Chang Sheng-ford (張盛和) and Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman William Tseng (曾銘宗), who both have a very ambiguous view of things, and focus instead on central bank Governor Perng Fai-nan (彭淮南), who cleared things up during a legislative question-and-answer session, directly criticizing the Wei family for returning to Taiwan empty-handed and then borrowing money for their real-estate speculation.
If Perng’s criticism is justified, why did the central bank, which is charged with the supervision of banks, not take action against Ting Hsin in the past, when the bank was directing all its efforts toward fighting real-estate speculation? Could it be that if the group had not been linked to tainted oil, its real-estate speculation would be acceptable?
The supervisory authorities’ actions in this matter — which contradict their behavior under normal circumstances — undoubtedly constitute the main reason why the rumor that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been protecting Ting Hsin refuses to die down.
The nation has always prided itself in having a liberal and sound financial market, while being determined to become an Asian financial center. One does not have to be a financial expert to see what has become of these ambitions.
How has it come to this? Perhaps part of the explanation lies in the double standards of the financial supervisory agencies, which have been highlighted by the Ting Hsin scandal.
Lin Hsuan-chu is an associate professor in National Cheng Kung University’s accountancy department.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS