The Financial Supervisory Commission recently drafted amendments to the Financial Holding Company Act (金融控股公司法) and the Banking Act (銀行法), aiming to curb improper interference by major shareholders in the operations of financial holding companies and banks. Last week, the commission said it would submit the draft to the Executive Yuan for review this month and expected further deliberation in the Legislative Yuan later this year.
The commission unveiled the draft amendments in April, inserting a new Article 16-1 into the Financial Holding Company Act and a corresponding Article 25-1 into the Banking Act. Since then, it has held two public hearings to collect feedback from concerned parties and gauge public opinion. Under its previous drafts, the commission would have the power to punish major shareholders who improperly interfere in the operations of a holding company or bank by fining them up to NT$50 million (US$1.56 million), restricting their voting rights or ordering them to sell their shares.
Major shareholders can strongly influence a board of directors and directly intervene in company operations in terms of personnel, finance, business and investment. In the financial industry, though, the regulator expects major shareholders to communicate and interact with companies in which they own stakes through their representatives on the board, rather than getting information directly from management or engaging in any form of meetings with responsible executives.
The draft legislation responds to two cases last year when the commission imposed sanctions on Shin Kong Financial Holding Co and China Development Financial Holding Corp respectively for failing to comply with corporate governance requirements and for allowing major shareholders to improperly interfere in company operations. It also comes as the commission early last month meted out punishments to CTBC Financial Holding Co for similar violations.
Yet after discussions with legal experts and financial professionals, the commission last month decided to limit the punishment to fines only, as it wanted to avoid violating the principle of legal certainty. For example, it seems difficult to define major shareholders’ conduct as intervention in gray areas like lunch meetings with company executives. Some experts also said the proposed divestment orders might infringe on shareholder property rights, according to the commission.
The commission’s previous draft has faced strong objections from the financial industry and there is still a long road ahead in separating management and ownership within the nation’s financial institutions, even though the commission started this push nearly six years ago.
Without voting rights restrictions and equity divestment orders, can the draft legislation constrain the conduct of shareholders who control a financial holding company or bank, instead of its management? Will a fine of NT$50 million effectively curb major shareholders interfering in a financial company? In response, the commission last week said it still hoped to receive public support by achieving its policy goal in stages.
To prevent those in power from improperly exercising power, there must be strong checks and balances. Regardless of the scope of punishment, the commission must keep in mind that precise, rigorous and determined legislation is key to curbing major shareholders’ improper interventions. Only then can it convince the public and continue implementing policy goals. If the commission dropped the equity divestment requirements due to fears of stock market impacts, it could still look at other ways to restrict the voting rights of major shareholders, as the outcome of this measure is major shareholders likely losing control of the company, but not stock investors.
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