The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) on Wednesday said it plans to amend legislation to increase penalties for those found poaching talent for Chinese firms.
Officials expressed concerns that people were skirting the law by establishing shell companies in Taiwan to poach local talent on behalf of Chinese companies, and that penalties were too lenient to act as a deterrent.
China has ramped up attempts to poach Taiwanese talent in the past few years, starting with an incentive program introduced in 2018 that offered tax cuts, capital and relaxed restrictions on certification for 134 professions.
China has set its sights in particular on Taiwanese engineers over the past year as demand has increased for computer chips, seeking to close the gap with Taiwan on semiconductor technology.
Taiwanese authorities have attempted to deal with the issue, including by prohibiting job banks from advertising vacancies in China, and most recently by identifying “core technologies” and restricting travel on some people in them.
Tackling these issues raises several questions: Is poaching a national security threat — as some Taiwanese officials have suggested? Can the government effectively curb the brain drain? To what extent can a democratic government restrict people’s actions and movements in the private sector without harming individual freedom?
Salaries in Taiwan are often far below those offered in China and elsewhere, and it is natural for those with high-demand skills to shop around for the positions that offer the best salary and benefits.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) on Tuesday last week became the most valuable traded company in the Asia-Pacific region, while Bloomberg in January wrote that the global supply chain is reliant on chips made by TSMC and other large Taiwanese firms.
However, the Central News Agency in June reported that TSMC’s average salary last year was about NT$1.6 million (US$57,290), including allowances, bonuses and profit sharing, but excluding pensions and benefits. While that is high for Taiwan, it is still below average for a salary at a major tech company elsewhere.
The government’s efforts to curb the nation’s brain drain have focused on poaching by China, but what about those who seek employment options of their own volition? Is an engineer to be prohibited from traveling to China to take up employment they found on their own? That would be an infringement on their liberty.
The government has focused on China, as there is evidence of poaching efforts by firms there, but that is not the only destination for Taiwanese jobseekers. What if they accept work in Japan or the US?
The distinction might be because Taipei is focusing its legislative efforts on China because it sees the Chinese Communist Party as an ideological adversary.
The core issue is not poaching, but rather people seeking salaries, benefits and work environments that their high-demand skills justify. In a market economy such things are usually solved through market mechanisms. For a company to remain competitive, it needs to offer competitive salaries. Poachers might be engaged in unscrupulous practices, but ultimately nobody is being forced to accept their offers.
If the government wants to solve the brain drain issue, it should work with industry leaders, veteran engineers and new graduates to figure out how to keep such workers in Taiwan.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS