In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, HTC Corp chairwoman Cher Wang (王雪紅) said at a press conference in Taiwanese and Chinese that she sided with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in support of the so-called “1992 consensus.” At the time, HTC had a net revenue of NT$619.76 billion (US$19.95 billion), earnings per share of NT$714.74 in 2011, a share price of NT$1,300 and market capitalization of NT$1.63 trillion. However, that same day was the beginning of the firm’s downfall, as she proclaimed that HTC is a Chinese brand. Since then, HTC’s mobile phone division has lost half of its sales in the Taiwanese market, likely in part due to pan-green camp voters vowing never to use HTC products again.
Wang’s words did not gain HTC 1.3 billion supporters in China. Was this situation brought about by the low self-esteem of a small nation, or a company’s long-term indoctrination by a foreign regime?
The unorthodox viewpoint of China held by Taiwanese academics, government officials and journalists is that the nation’s economy is in China’s hands. In particular, a lot of entrepreneurs believe they can rely on the advantage of a common language to establish a brand in the giant cross-strait market, with dreams of then creating a global monopoly. It is this misconception that lead HTC to its demise.
China is a nationalist country. It might have 5,000 years of history, but this has not produced a civic culture of brotherly love and land for all Chinese. Rather, on a small scale, it is a society of many small Chinatowns around the world representing China’s ethnic identity, while on a large scale, it uses the spirit of “the Middle Kingdom,” descendants of the Yellow Emperor and references to China’s mighty revival to maintain a connection to the greater Chinese civilization, while deeming all other races barbarian.
Chinese ethnocentrism was rampant when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ruled pre-democratic Taiwan, which triggered the 228 Incident and the White Terror era.
Recently, Beijing has pushed guidelines for a national IC industry — the China Manufacturing 2025 effort and related policies — while an alien regime in Taiwan is singing to the same tune. Beijing’s goal has been to substitute Taiwanese-owned businesses in China and semiconductor industries still in Taiwan. Although Beijing has repeatedly called Taiwanese firms “compatriots,” it does not matter how hard they try to cooperate, Taiwanese firms are still Taiwanese and China does not want important industries and brands to be meddled with by “barbarians.”
Wang’s claim that HTC is a firm created by Chinese and that it is a world-class, international brand created for Chinese is not leaving an impression on the Chinese ethnic identity. On the contrary, it is triggering a negative effect worldwide. If the Japanese were told that HTC is a Chinese brand, would they then choose HTC even if the price and functionality were the same?
The same problem would occur in Vietnam, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations as well as in the US and Europe, especially when China launches its “One Belt, One Road” initiative to bolster the “glorious revival of the Chinese people.”
In confronting Taiwan’s economic hardships, it is urgent that leaders and entrepreneurs address Taiwanese identity and HTC’s worldview. They must understand that working toward being a Chinese business will not bring the desired outcome and will lead to failure, because it alienates global markets.
Perhaps they should use a similar strategy to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co and become rooted in Taiwan focusing on technology to run a successful business.
Huang Tien-lin is former president and chairman of First Commercial Bank and a former Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Zane Kheir
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS