From an entrepreneurial perspective, there is strong opposition to the recently passed amendments to the Court Organization Act (法院組織法) that would permit the live broadcasting of court procedures.
News reports said that if live broadcasts of trials are ultimately implemented, they would cost the country more than NT$500 billion (US$17.28 billion) each year. This amount is equivalent to 25 percent of Samsung Electronics Co’s annual revenue — an extremely alarming figure.
Last week, I flew back to Taiwan from India and had dinner with several restaurant owners. They said that if the government wastes NT$500 billion annually on live court broadcasts instead of thinking about how to improve Taiwan’s economy — regardless of whether the responsibility lies with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — they would refuse to accept that outcome.
These business owners all run small to medium-sized restaurant chains, and even just a few million New Taiwan dollars is significant to them — it is enough to help overcome the labor shortages and operational bottlenecks they face.
They said that the opposition parties are sowing chaos in the legislature, while the ruling party lacks initiative. To them, both are equally frustrating.
Three of the business owners who support the DPP said that, as the Legislative Yuan is currently controlled by the KMT-TPP alliance majority, the administration should work around it and interact directly with entrepreneurs.
President William Lai’s (賴清德) plan to set up a sovereign wealth fund is a great starting point, they said. They believe that Lai should focus his efforts on industrial transformation and use the executive branch’s authority to cooperate directly with businesses, thereby exerting pressure on unproductive legislators.
Companies such as Asustek Computer Inc and Acer Inc are the future Samsung, and firms such as Aerospace Industrial Development Corp should be integrated into the future Hanwha Group to manufacture missiles, tanks, submarines and more. If that were to happen, would opposition legislators still dare to arbitrarily cut the national defense budget? They would not, as it would be a market where businesses thrive. Industries should be scaled up, as that produces economic strength.
The food and beverage industry could also expand into the cultural sector — from girl groups and Taiwanese dramas to large-scale traditional media and popular culture, as well as the teaching of traditional languages and culture. Taiwanese, or Taiwanese Hokkien (Taiyu, 台語), and Hakka (客家語) are great examples.
China’s Xiamen University is actively collaborating with the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc and the Philippines Fujian Association to teach Southern Min (Minnanyu, 閩南語) to Han Chinese Filipinos, since most people of Han Chinese heritage in the Philippines speak Southern Min. Taiwan should have taken the lead in launching a similar initiative, as it is a major opportunity for cultural export. Instead, Xiamen University got ahead, leveraging the Chinese Communist Party’s power of cultural influence.
If the food and beverage industry could help develop the nation’s key traditional and pop culture exports, would we still need to tolerate KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen’s (陳玉珍) mocking of cultural workers, saying that the media should “throw out the begging bowl”? Absolutely not. The government does not need to hog the spotlight — it just needs to support cultural enterprises by guaranteeing they can receive bank loans, thereby allowing them to reach their full potential.
The mass recall movement is in full swing, but business owners hold differing views. Business operators are struggling to deal with rising labor costs and the low employment rate. Meanwhile, the government — constrained by local labor rights protections — would not open up and allow for migrant workers. Could such behavior not lead constituents who originally supported your party to lose all motivation to do so?
Wang Wen-sheng is a doctoral student at Jindal University in India.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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