There is no denying that the digital economy has great potential in terms of size and scope. At the same time, digital platforms and assets are under greater regulatory scrutiny than ever before. From China to India to the US, regulators are attempting to keep operations under control or make them liable to taxation, while other countries seek to walk a fine line between financial liberalization and economic stabilization in their digitalization.
In Taiwan, financial institutions — such as banks, insurance companies, securities and futures brokerages, investment trust enterprises and asset management firms — are highly regulated and subject to licensing requirements. They also face penalties and disciplinary measures from the nation’s top financial regulator, the Financial Supervisory Commission, if they contravene laws and regulations, yet the digital revolution seems to be adding to the commission’s regulatory and supervisory challenges given the rise in fraud.
From electronic payments to Web-only banks, peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms and virtual assets, the commission has sought to promote fintech businesses that serve consumer needs in a different manner or through better technologies, following implementation in 2018 of the Financial Technology Development and Innovative Experimentation Act (金融科技發展與創新實驗條例), also known as the “Fintech Sandbox Act.”
In their present stage, P2P and virtual assets appear to be the commission’s two major focuses in promoting financial service digitalization. While the top regulator adopts a flexible approach to monitoring the two sectors, there have been calls to bolster supervision, and even impose harsh penalties if necessary.
As the commission has no intention of seeking special legislation concerning the P2P and virtual asset sectors, and does not want to act as a comprehensive regulatory body, P2P and virtual asset service provider operations in Taiwan remain largely unregulated. Instead, they mainly rely on the commisions’ guidelines and follow self-disciplinary rules jointly developed by the Bankers Association and prospective sectors to address legal, ethical, security and consumer protection issues.
Without bothering to issue licenses, perform business inspections and impose administrative sanctions, the commission’s hands-off approach is aimed at opening up opportunities for fintech-enabled financial services to develop and take shape in Taiwan. Yet compared with electronic payments and Web-only banks, the operations of P2P platforms and the management of virtual assets are prone to fraud and harm consumer rights, thus calls for the commission to step up inspection and supervision are on the rise.
For instance, P2P lending in Taiwan is still in its infancy and is subject to less regulatory oversight from financial authorities, but after P2P lending platform im.B defrauded more than 5,000 investors of an estimated NT$2.5 billion (US$79.86 million) early last year, several lawmakers and financial experts blamed the commission for failing to properly monitor or be proactive in preventing fraudulent activities.
As for virtual asset management, the commission faces the same regulatory dilemma between prudential regulation and financial innovation.
However, this problem is not unique to Taiwan. Several countries face the same difficulty and adopt a relatively conservative approach by gradually bolstering supervision instead of achieving the task in one go. When fintech brings greater convenience, the essential question remains: How can digitalization benefits be extended to all parties without hindering financial innovation and market competition?
Apart from regulatory sandboxes to permit cautious fintech experimentation and setting guidelines, the commission has to do more, such as adopting reviews and adjusting regulatory measures on a rolling basis based on operator feedback. This might be an important tasks for the commission after new legislators are sworn in on Thursday and as it celebrates its 20th anniversary this 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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS