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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS