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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past