Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) is no doubt one of the most successful businessmen in the world.
It would, however, be an overstatement to say that Gou built his entire fortune by exploiting cheap Chinese labor, as some academics have accused him of doing. In a bout of name-calling, these academics have called him “the disgrace of Taiwan” after a string of suicides at his Shenzhen factory.
It is in the nature of business to seek to maximize profits by minimizing overheads, including the cost of labor and land, and some internationally recognized Taiwanese businesses have relocated their assembly lines from China to Indonesia to take advantage of the even cheaper labor there, where wages are so low that factory owners are too embarrassed to disclose them.
However, this isn’t to say that Gou and his Hon Hai Group, although a big contributor to the local economy, are entitled to any preferential treatment in Taiwan.
In the case of the Dapu (大埔) farmland controversy, the Miaoli County Government has obviously sided with Innolux Display Corp — which Hon Hai has invested in — and seized five hectares of farmland in Jhunan Township (竹南) without the consent of the 24 families who own the land.
The county government’s move is aimed at speeding up the planned expansion of the Hsinchu Science Park, where Innolux Display originally planned to build its high-end, newer-generation fabs with an initial investment of NT$120 billion (US$3.73 billion).
The investment and expansion plan sound like good news for both the county’s and the nation’s economic development and employment.
However, it now seems that the county government’s drive to expropriate that land may have been in vain, as Hon Hai threatened on Wednesday to re-evaluate its investment in Taiwan.
All the blame should be on the Miaoli County Government, since Taiwan, unlike China, remains a country where the property rights of its nationals are enshrined in, and protected by, the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Control Yuan should involve itself in the controversy and launch investigations into alleged negligence by county government officials and its Commissioner Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻), who appears to have tried to skirt his responsibilities with excuses, including a plea that he “really didn’t know there were rice paddies there.”
That is an absurd excuse for a county magistrate, a person who is supposed to know the county he is in charge of better than anyone else.
As for Hon Hai, any threat to leave Taiwan because of the land controversy will not make its corporate image more liberal and democratic. Leaving would only inflict new wounds on the farmers, who have already suffered great losses and may now have to unfairly bear the brunt of the county government’s inability to attract business.
Hon Hai should remain neutral in the land controversy and keep its faith in Taiwan, a nation where wrongs can be righted, and which must ensure that businesses do not act immorally or exploit the less powerful.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS