On March 5, the White House announced that Columbia University professor Tim Wu (吳修銘), a second-generation Taiwanese American, was to become US President Joe Biden’s special assistant for technology and competition policy, and would be working for the White House’s National Economic Council.
The appointment has attracted a lot of attention. Wu specializes in antitrust, intellectual property and telecommunications law.
White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki said that Biden has made it clear that he intends to stand up to abuses of power, including those by big tech companies, and that Wu would help to advance that agenda.
In Taiwan, the public always takes great pride in outstanding talent overseas who are of Taiwanese descent, and in this case, Tim Wu’s father, Alan Wu (吳明達), had been placed on a blacklist for his participation in the Taiwanese independence movement.
People like these are seen to exemplify the emotional connection and the contributions that overseas Taiwanese have made to their birthplace.
Tim Wu is equally at home in academia and the real world. Educated in Canada and the US, he obtained his doctorate in law from Harvard University and, in addition to academic posts at renowned universities, he has worked in government, as well as being a legal clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
He worked in the administration of former US president Barack Obama, and served as an academic in residence and senior policy adviser at the US Federal Trade Commission.
In 2014, Tim Wu ran as the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor of New York, receiving 40 percent of the popular vote.
Tim Wu’s achievements outside of academia and government have been even more impressive: He was named one of “America’s 100 Most Influential Lawyers” by the National Law Journal and as one of Scientific American’s 50 people of 2006, as well as one of Harvard University’s 100 most influential graduates by 02138 magazine a year later.
His book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, was selected as one of the best books of 2010.
More significantly, he coined the term “net neutrality” in a 2003 paper titled “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination,” advocating for consumers’ free and fair access to the Internet, in what has become a fundamental concept of Internet standards.
In his books Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World and The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, Tim Wu takes tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google to task, winning him the approval of the progressive arm of the Democratic Party and antitrust non-governmental organizations in the US.
His appointment does not require US Senate approval, but influential senators have expressed their support.
Tim Wu holds that excessive concentration of economic resources leads to inequality and actual harm to society as a whole, and that it is plain for all to see how the tech giants have been able to grow and expand their influence through mergers, and how they are affecting people’s everyday lives through speech, searches and e-commerce.
He compares the current situation to the “Gilded Age” of the US in the late 19th century, when the US economy was monopolized by a small number of large corporations, but says that these tech giants are unable to effectively protect their users’ data, engage in fair competition with smaller rivals, or eradicate misinformation from their online platforms.
His most widely quoted remark is aimed at users of social media and search engines, and about how they are essentially handing over their own personal information and data to these giants: “When an online service is free, you’re not the customer. You’re the product.”
During Biden’s presidential campaign, he was explicit about his intention to break up the tech giants, and expressed concern that social media enjoyed excessive protection under communications laws.
It came as no surprise that the Biden administration would want to work with the US Congress on legislation reinforcing antitrust laws, and address the economic and social challenges posed by tech platforms, strengthen competition and market forces, and break up monopolies.
Even last year, Facebook and Google were accused by the federal government and several state governments of contravening antitrust laws, and Amazon and Apple were being investigated for alleged anticompetitive practices.
The policies introduced by the administration of former US president Donald Trump to deal with the tech giants are only to be strengthened under Biden.
Tim Wu’s appointment would mean much to many Taiwanese at home and abroad.
Due to his father’s untimely death, he was raised by his Canadian mother, but he spent summers in Taiwan visiting relatives and experienced Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996, maintaining significant contacts in Taiwan and among the Taiwanese community in the US.
This Taiwanese connection and his devotion to public service were strongly influenced by his father. Tim Wu has said that he inherited his father’s anti-authoritarian ways, and these have greatly informed his connection with politics.
In Tim Wu, Taiwanese see an exemplary second-generation Taiwanese who has not forgotten his roots.
Many Taiwanese families in the US maintain their mother tongue at least into the second generation, more so than is perhaps the case in Taipei.
At the same time, they not only value their children’s education and pass on Taiwanese values, but Taiwanese Americans also encourage the next generation to integrate into mainstream society, and apply their talents to a range of sectors and industries.
Another issue that must be mentioned is the inclusion of Tim Wu’s father on the authoritarian government’s blacklist. During the Martial Law era under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, dissidents advocating Taiwanese independence were denied visas, prohibited from entering the country, or had their passports revoked.
As a result, overseas Taiwanese were not able to return home for several decades, even to attend their parents’ funerals.
Even more pernicious, the blacklist was created by foreign representatives of the one-party state or hired “professional students,” who monitored and then reported on Taiwanese students and organizations.
They cast their net wide, and that was how Carnegie Mellon University assistant professor of statistics Chen Wen-chen (陳文成) became a victim during a visit to Taiwan.
Although the blacklist has passed into history together with the Martial Law era, the KMT refuses to admit that it existed, prohibiting the process of transitional justice from making it public and compensating the victims.
Despite all of this, overseas Taiwanese maintain an emotional bond with Taiwan.
As Taiwan moved toward liberty, democracy and human rights, they spoke up for Taiwan, and provided help and financial aid, making it possible together with the people of Taiwan.
Taiwan’s democracy was not a gift from the gods, and the assistance of overseas Taiwanese like Alan Wu must never be forgotten.
Today, they continue to fight for Taiwan through the Formosan Association for Public Affairs and other organizations as Taiwan resists China’s attempts at annexation.
Translated by Paul Cooper and Perry Svensson
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS