The reputations of major Taiwanese corporations and financial groups have been in free fall over the past two or three years, and are now trailing at levels as low as President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) popularity ratings. Putting aside for the time being questions of personal conduct, there is much to say about sacrificing the public good in the search for profits, self-interest and greed, and thinking little of damaging the democratic rule of law.
There has been no shortage of businesspeople attempting to use their influence on politics to further their own ends, and many have become the brunt of public ridicule and anger. With some, their names have become toxic. However, what has not changed is their pervasive political influence in the country.
In their 2008 book Corporations and Citizenship, Andrew Crane, Dirk Matten and Jeremy Moon contend that the idea that corporations cannot act as citizens within a democratic system is outdated. On the contrarary, they say that corporations can exercise their citizenship rights, and no longer need to confine themselves to the field of the market economy. All that is required is for these corporations to put out their feelers and be active within the political arena, in much the same way as ordinary citizens participate in political life, and this would lead to the emergence of corporate social responsibility.
According to the Chicago School of Economics, a neoliberal stronghold, it stands to reason that the greater a state’s intervention, the more reasonable and legitimate it is for corporations to flex their economic muscles to influence politics.
US economist Robert Reich, who served as former US president Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor, published a book in 2008, entitled Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life. In it, Reich explored how the burgeoning wealth disparity in the US, the increasing numbers of people being fired or laid off, and the greed and corruption that have seemingly become endemic in the country, are all inextricably intertwined with corporate political lobbying and the closer ties between politicians and big business.
In political-economic theory, major corporations in the era of globalization have obtained a degree of “power of definition” that would have been unimaginable in the past. What does this power allow them to define, exactly? The power to define the concept of polis, which in different languages and contexts can variously be used to incorporate the meaning of the market, the public sphere, advocacy, the collective and even the police.
One could even say that, in Taiwan, major corporations have their finger in almost every pie, and that there is little out there that does not come under the definition of polis.
However, we should be careful. History tells us that corporations and financial groups are rarely on the side of democracy, freedom and human rights.
Lin Chia-ho is an assistant professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Law.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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
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
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