The Ministry of Audit’s latest report shows that the nation’s 23 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) posted a combined revenue of NT$3.716 trillion (US$118.7 billion) and expenditure of NT$3.477 trillion last year, leaving an annual surplus of NT$239 billion for the year. The report indicates that only three SOEs reported losses last year and that the combined surplus of the 23 SOEs was about 29 percent higher than the NT$184.3 billion estimated surplus in the government’s budget approved by the legislature.
Employees and union representatives of state-run businesses are asking for higher wages, which, they suggest, might encourage their peers in the private sector and benefit the nation’s economy.
The corporatist model in Taiwan’s economy has long endorsed that companies, whether state-run or privately owned, distribute bonuses and pay raises when they are making enough money to share their earnings with employees. The SOEs’ scorecard for last year seemed fantastic and almost everyone would have agreed that a pay raise is accordingly the next move.
However, the public knows this will not happen soon because Cabinet officials last month said that civil servants and SOE employees would not receive pay raises until wage increases were implemented for employees of private enterprises. Several lawmakers are putting enormous effort into pushing for the passage of amendments to four related laws that provide tax incentives to publicly traded companies that share their profits with employees and raise wages.
However, who actually contributed to the national coffers? From the ministry’s report, the central bank made the most money among the 20 profitable SOEs last year. Without its NT$198 billion — 83 percent of total profit — which the bank gained through its forex investments and interest income, Taiwanese SOEs would have made a much smaller contribution.
State utility Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) was next with profits of NT$14.1 billion, compared with the NT$17.5 billion loss it made in the previous year. Although it was Taipower’s first profitable year since 2006 — thanks to falling international prices of some key raw materials for electricity generation — the firm still faced an accumulated deficit of NT$208.4 billion as of the end of last year. In other words, last year’s profit was tiny compared with the firm’s accumulated losses over the years.
In contrast, the ministry’s report shows that refiner CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC), the Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) and BankTaiwan Life Insurance Co were the three SOEs that remained unprofitable last year. CPC led the pack with a loss of NT$33 billion, a stark contrast with the NT$17.2 billion in earnings it had forecast for the year. BankTaiwan Life Insurance registered a loss of NT$842 million, a reversal of its previously projected profit of NT$252 million for the year. Meanwhile, the TRA registered losses of NT$3.7 billion last year, after predicting a loss of NT$6.2 billion. What is clear from their lackluster performances is not only heavy deficits, but also persistent inefficiency.
The perennial issue of state firms’ lack of competitiveness is not new. Over the years, the government has repeatedly vowed to reform SOEs, but its pledges are nothing but empty words. The biggest problem facing the government is an inability to overcome obstacles posed by strongly vested interests in state companies, especially with top management positions filled with political appointments to reward government supporters and loyal party figures.
Therefore, without any real action being taken to improve the supervision of SOEs and reform the state firms’ ownership structure and management, Taiwan will have to continue relying on its central bank to make contributions to the treasury every year.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS