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.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS