Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) is popularly known as Taiwan’s guardian angel, or alternatively as its “silicon shield.”
In both cases, the idea is that the importance of the semiconductor chips it produces is such that China would hold back from a military invasion against Taiwan for fear of destroying the source of advanced chips that it needs for its own economy to thrive; at the same time, Taiwan’s allies, including the US, EU countries and Japan, would come to its defense not just because of geopolitical considerations, but also due to concerns that a successful Chinese invasion would almost certainly lead to a halt in the supply of TSMC’s chips, either because its plants were destroyed or as they would fall into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Some commentators say that it is TSMC’s importance that bolsters the CCP’s desire to take control of Taiwan, that TSMC’s very importance could work against Taiwan’s security.
The concept of the “silicon shield” is nuanced: Not all chips are made equal, nor are all semiconductor fabs, nor are all workforces with the required skills, nor are the strategic considerations of the parties involved, be they national governments or TSMC itself.
The company has already agreed to build plants in China, the US and in Japan, and this week it revealed plans to build a 12-inch wafer fab in Dresden, Germany, as part of a joint venture to be called European Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (ESMC), of which TSMC would have 70 percent ownership.
This branching out overseas might give rise to concerns that the company is diluting Taiwan’s silicon shield, but it is not as simple as that.
The decision to build fabs overseas, especially in the US, Japan and Germany, is to allay those countries’ fears of over-reliance on one source in a vital supply chain. Each one of those countries has its own specific reason not to want to be caught without needed chips.
It is important to realize, too, that the overseas fabs would not be producing the most advanced chips. ESMC is to produce chips that are suitable for the automotive industry, the lack of which caused automotive production delays during the COVID-19 pandemic. TSMC said in January that in about five years, about 20 percent of its 28-nanometer-and-below capacity would come from overseas fabs.
Not only would the most advanced, 2-nanometer semiconductors be produced in Taiwan, but the company has plans to open more fabs in the next few years. It is currently building a plant for next-generation 2-nanometer chips in Kaohsiung, plans to produce them in its Hsinchu plant and is also looking to secure a site in Taichung for a third 2-nanometer chip plant.
TSMC holds a 90 percent market share in these most advanced semiconductors, which the overseas fabs cannot produce, and it makes them under secure conditions to ensure the technology remains in Taiwan and the company keeps hold of its competitive edge.
TSMC chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) says that the company is far too invested in Taiwan, with its established technologies, facilities, researchers and skilled workforce, to be able to transport its most cutting-edge operations overseas.
The question of whether it is wise to concentrate advanced semiconductor production in Taiwan remains, but concerns over whether it is still Taiwan’s silicon shield can be disregarded, if one believes the silicon shield theory in the first place, which not everyone does.
In an interview with the New York Times, Liu said, “China will not invade Taiwan because of semiconductors. China will not not invade Taiwan because of semiconductors.”
He himself therefore rejects the idea of the silicon shield, as he does the idea that TSMC puts Taiwan at risk.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS