Forced to Flee: Hon Hai or Dolphins?

Forced to Flee: Hon Hai or Dolphins?United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 23, 2010

Hon Hai Group Chairman Terry Gou has recently been subjected to relentless of criticism. Guo asked, "Is there really no place for me on Taiwan? Will I really be driven out?" Meanwhile, an environmental impact report has paralyzed the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Company. One reason is that its facilities may obstruct the migratory route for white dolphins. Environmentalists oppose driving the white dolphins out.

But just who is being driven out of Taiwan? Is it Hon Hai? Or is it white dolphins? Does a majority on Taiwan really favor these two extremes? Can we not find a balance between realism and idealism? Whether the issue is labor rights or ecological and environmental claims, can we not eschew anti-business demagoguery and political sloganeering?

Some capitalists are indeed despicable. The Wall Street fat cats responsible for the financial tsunami swallowed up the life savings of countless ordinary folk the world over. But other entrepreneurs are decent people who create employment opportunities and promote social progress. Often a nation's economic pulse and competitiveness depends on just such a handful of key industrialists.

The Republic of China remains in dire political and economic straits. If we wish to become a "free trade island," and establish an "Asian Pacific Platform," we must attract businesses and raise capital. We must "build nests to entice the phoenix." We must attract Taiwan capital, Mainland capital, and foreign capital. We must "join the world." But even more importantly, we must "keep our roots on Taiwan." Therefore, maintaining a certain amount of manufacturing capacity on the island is essential. Because only manufacturing industries can retain unique technical advantages. Only the manufacturing sector can increase employment opportunities.

But soliciting businesses to set up factories, especially within the manufacturing industry, inevitably leads to conflict over labor rights, rivalries between regions, and concerns over environmental protection. When Taiwan was still known as "Formosa," the entire island was a natural deer park. Now the only place one can see a deer is on a nature preserve. As long as human beings continue to inhabit the earth, this competition between development and conservation will not end. That is why we face a dilemma over white dolphins today.

The social cost of attracting business and capital must be proportionate. But the Republic of China's central policy is to attract global investment. If every major investment is subjected to such an unrealistic selection process, how much room will remain for economic development? When some people wanted to establish a biotech park, a prominent author characterized the site as "Taiwan's lungs." When some people wanted to construct a petrochemical plant, ecologists said "Don't drive out the dolphins!" When some people wanted to construct an enclosure around a Technology Park, 24 farming families vowed to "til their fields to their last breath." How one views such controversies of course, depends on one's perspective. Both sides claim to be on the side of the angels. Take the Tai Po land incident for example. Ninety-eight percent of the farmers favored selling the land. But a mere two percent who opposed selling the land dictated the outcome. We are reluctant to comment on the merits of each sides' arguments. But we cannot help wondering, should our economic policy really be dicated by this "98:2" standard?

Now let us return to Terry Gou. Guo built factories on both sides of the Strait. At the very least, he fully complied with the law. Working conditions exceeded both legal requirements and standards set by other manufacturers. The main cause for the plant controversy was political and social factors unique to the Chinese Mainland. Arguably Gou could have done better. After all, he eventually offered raises. But to label him "Taiwan's Shame" is unjust. It is unseemly for university professors to engage in such name-calling. Mainland factories belonging to Japanese companies have also experienced labor strikes. Should the management of these companies be indiscriminately labeled "Japan's Shame?" Terry Gou is an entrepreneur struggling to survive within a labor chain controlled by the West. The income from his OEM work represents merely 2% of the upstream income. Both sides of the Strait ought to be ashamed about this 2% OEM number. But who if anyone deserves to be denounced as "Taiwan's Shame?" Just who are the university professors who slapped this label on Terry Guo?

The public fears entrepreneurs even as it invests its hopes on them. The choice between Hon Hai and white dolphins underscores the relationship between corporate responsibility and public expectations. Certain entrepreneurs are publicly reviled, including those who colluded with the Chen Shui-bian regime during its "Second Round of Fiscal Reforms." Such crony capitalists deserve to be reviled. But legitimate businesses that promote economic development and benefit the community deserve public support and encouragement.

How can Taiwan's economy be brought back to life? In the end it all boils down to persuading businesses to invest, thereby transforming Taiwan into an island of free trade. Assuming this view is correct, assuming this is the way out for Taiwan, we must be fair to entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs confront global challenges. We can urge them to be sociallly responsible regarind labor rights and environmental protection. But we cannot expect them to live with "98:2" standards. We must not demonize them as "Taiwan's Shame."

Does anyone remember how DuPont and Bayer were driven off Taiwan? Then Chen Shui-bian era presidential economic adviser Vincent Siew pronounced it the "death knell" for foreign investment on Taiwan. Now, over a decade later, we are again "soliciting business." But will naysayers amounting to 2% of the public drown out the yeasayers who constitute the other 98%?

Lukang did not want DuPont. So DuPont went to the Mainland. Ilan did not want the Number Six Naptha Cracking Plant. So the Number Six Naphtha Cracking Plant went to Yunlin. These are all choices we make. Hon Hai and white dolphins represent two sets of values. For four centuries we have been choosing between the two. In the centuries to come, we too will have to make similar choices.

逼誰出走，鴻海還是白海豚？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.07.23 02:39 am

深陷批評的鴻海集團董事長郭台銘問：「台灣是不是沒有我留下來的餘地？難道要逼我們出走？」在此同時，國光石化的環評也陷入僵局，原因之一是影響了白海豚的廊道，生態人士反對逼白海豚出走。

台灣要逼誰出走？要逼走鴻海，或白海豚？難道多數台灣人都贊同有此無彼的極端選擇？我們難道不能在現實與理想之間找到平衡？不論是勞工權益、生態或環保的主張，能否不被操作成反商仇富的社會偏見或政治口號？

資本家有可怕可惡者，如美國華爾街那批肥貓，掀起金融海嘯，吞噬了全球多少庶民的畢生血汗積蓄。但企業家也有可愛可敬者，創造就業機會，帶動社會發展，甚至整個國家的經貿命脈與競爭力往往是靠幾個重要廠家維繫於不墜。

台灣的國際政經情勢極度嚴峻。我們要走向「經貿自由島」、建設為「亞太平台」；主要就是要招商募資，築巢引鳳，吸引台資、陸資、外資在台匯聚。然而，台灣雖要「走向世界」，但更重要的卻是「根留台灣」。因此，維持一定規模及品質的製造業尤其重要，因為有製造業才能保留獨特的技術優勢，且有製造業才有較多的就業機會。

然而，招商設廠，尤其是製造業，難免會與勞工權益、區域社會情境及生態環境發生衝突或選擇的問題。以台灣而言，在「福爾摩沙」時代，可謂全島都是天然鹿苑，現在卻只在養殖場才看得到鹿；事實上，只要人類繼續在地球上存在，這類發展與保育的競合過程就不會停止，所以今天我們也才會面對白海豚的問題。

招商投資，當然絕不可付出不成比例的社會代價。但是，在台灣正以全球招商為國家中興政策之際，如果件件重大投資都要面對有此無彼的極端選擇的話，台灣還有多少發展的空間？要設生技園區，作家說那是台灣的肺；要設石化廠，生態人士說，別趕跑白海豚；要圈地設科技園區，廿四家農戶說要「死守農業」。這些爭議，見仁見智，公說公有理、婆說婆有理；如大埔圈地事件，即使百分之九十八的農人贊成賣地，但情勢已由百分之二反對售地者主控。我們不願也無權評論兩方的是非曲直，只是想問：台灣的經濟政策是否將以這種「九十八比二法則」為準據？

回頭說到郭台銘，他在兩岸設廠，至少完全符合法律規定，且勞動條件亦有優於法律規定及其他廠家之處。關於他在對岸廠區發生的種種爭議，恐怕大陸政治及社會的特殊因素才是主因；若謂郭台銘可以做得更好，應可期待（畢竟他加薪了），但若說他是「台灣之恥」，這卻不像是教授們會寫得出來的判決書。君不見大陸的日商工廠也有工潮，難道亦可用「日本之恥」概括？其實，郭台銘也是在西方主控的產業分工鏈中掙扎生存的企業家，他的代工所得僅佔上下游所得的二％而已；兩岸應以這種「二％代工」為恥，但若要數可以稱作「台灣之恥」的人物，不知那些教授們是以什麼排序挑上了郭台銘？

社會與企業家的關係，可謂是「既期待／又怕受傷害」。鴻海與白海豚這類的選擇，凸顯出企業責任與社會期待的競合關係。有些企業家深受社會嫌惡，如扁政府在二次金改中與財團的勾結，使人深惡痛絕；但是，對於那些正當經營、帶動發展、造福社會的企業家，社會亦應當給他們應有的施展空間，並給予支持與掌聲。

台灣如何起死回生，說到底，就是四個字：招商投資。若要再加一句話，就是：招商投資，將台灣建設為經貿自由島。倘若這樣的看法是對的，倘若這是台灣的活路；那麼，我們至少應給面對全球挑戰的企業家們一個平衡合理的評價，可以督促他們在勞動人權及環保生態上克盡社會責任，但不宜用「九十八比二法則」否定他們，也不要亂扣「台灣之恥」的帽子。

還記得趕走杜邦及拜耳的事嗎？扁政府時代的總統經濟顧問蕭萬長當時稱，那是外商來台投資的「喪鐘」。現在十餘年後「招商」的嬰兒又要臨盆，難道二％的噓聲會蓋過九十八％的掌聲？

鹿港不要杜邦，杜邦跑到中國；宜蘭不要六輕，六輕跑到雲林。這些都是選擇。鴻海和白海豚其實代表兩種社會價值，台灣四百年來皆在兩者之間的選擇之中走過來，未來，我們一定要更懂得選擇之道。