A security wake-up call
The recent controversy surrounding Cathay United Bank’s (國泰世華銀行) core credit card system upgrade has once again sparked public concern about financial security and foreign investment backgrounds. The third-party vendor commissioned by the bank, Singapore-based financial technology firm Any Technology Pvt (AnyTech, 認和科技), was found to have been backed by Chinese capital. The firm is even controlled by an agency of the Chinese Ministry of Finance. This incident not only exposes the gaps in the supply chain review processes of financial institutions, but also challenges the government’s regulatory mechanisms regarding the activities of Chinese companies in Taiwan.
In response to the findings, Cathay United Bank terminated its contract with AnyTech ahead of schedule, but whether this would be enough to restore market confidence remains in question. The Ministry of Economic Affairs has fined AnyTech NT$2.17 million (US$65,553) under the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).
Compared with the potential national and information security risks this incident has caused, it is debatable whether such a punishment is sufficient.
Core credit card systems are highly sensitive infrastructure involving a large amount of personal data and transaction records. Allowing system management authority to fall into the hands of foreign entities — especially companies backed by the Chinese government — not only threatens the financial security of Taiwanese consumers, but also poses the risk of leaking personal financial data. This kind of information holds extremely high strategic value to the Chinese government. If China were to use it for financial surveillance or economic warfare, there would be unimaginable consequences.
Although the government has outlined clear regulations that prohibit companies with ties to the Chinese government from entering Taiwan’s critical infrastructure sectors, many Chinese firms manage to bypass these restrictions by making roundabout investments or establishing subsidiaries in third countries.
AnyTech opted for the latter, establishing a subsidiary in Taiwan through a company registered in Singapore — its success in doing so highlights the gaps in Taiwan’s review mechanisms. Moving forward, the government should strengthen its real beneficiary investigation process by conducting stricter and more thorough checks on the shareholders and sources of funding behind firms to mitigate potential risks.
Financial institutions must also enhance their cybersecurity awareness and establish more comprehensive supply chain review mechanisms to ensure external partners meet security standards to safeguard consumer rights and national security.
This incident might urge the government to amend legislation to raise review standards for foreign investment involving critical infrastructure, or expand the scope of supervision over Chinese companies.
This case was not just a crisis for Cathay United Bank, but a wake-up call for Taiwan’s entire financial cybersecurity system. The government and businesses must earnestly address this issue to avoid repeating mistakes.
Chen Chi
Taipei
Free speech still has limits
China-born influencer, Liu Zhenya (劉振亞) — better known by her social media handle “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣) — advocated for China to “unify Taiwan using military force.” As a result, the government revoked her dependent-based residency permit and ordered her to return to China or be deported.
The majority of Taiwanese applauded this move, but a small group of academics have recently spoken out against it. The group has made multiple alarmist claims, even urging the Democratic Progressive Party government to “halt at the brink of the abyss.”
The academics’ doubts stem from ignorance, as they defy mainstream public opinion and lack reason and legal basis. Freedom of speech does not mean that you are completely free to say whatever you want without restraint — one must still adhere to the boundaries of law and reason. Otherwise, what is the purpose of enacting laws?
Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Code, which address the crimes of public insult and slander, are fundamental regulations that limit freedom of speech. Any infringement upon individual rights and interests must be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment. This is particularly true with a crime as serious as contravening national security.
Liu using her platform to advocate for military unification is equivalent to encouraging the use of Chinese military force against Taiwan. Such statements threaten the safety of others — thus, they cannot be considered protected under freedom of speech. If advocating for China to use military force against Taiwan is also considered free speech, then perhaps we should stop prohibiting people from shouting that they have a bomb on an airplane.
Encouraging forced unification is tantamount to advocating for a military invasion — how could these people exaggerate the issue and make such far-fetched arguments claiming that the government is compressing space for “free speech”?
Tien Fong-wen
New Taipei City
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS