Industrial Policy Favoritism toward the Electronics Industry

Industrial Policy Favoritism toward the Electronics Industry
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 16, 2010

Academia Sinica President Wong Chi-huey is a wooden academic, a man of few words. During a September 11 meeting with business representatives however, he loudly criticized the government's industrial policy. Wong Chi-huey pointed out that the ROC government's industrial policy too heavily favors electronics. Many companies within the electronics industry are low-margin OEM firms that require precise control over mass production techiques. Therefore the government's one-sided policy is probably detrimental to Taiwan's overall economic development.

For the past thirty years, the electronics industry has been Taiwan's most important economic asset, the goose that laid the golden egg. But this electronic goose is showing its age. It no longer lays as many eggs as it once did. Recently the heads of Foxconn and Compal spoke guardedly about the future of their companies. The electronics industry faces a bottleneck, just as Wong Chi-huey noted.

Government officials are not unaware of the electronic industry's plight. But although the problem is obvious, little has been done to seek a solution. Over the past two years, we have seen few industries adjust their policies.

As early as one year and five months ago, then Premier Liu was making much of the "six new industries." These include biotechnology, green energy, creative culture, tourism, international health care, and high-quality agriculture. After taking over last September, Wu Den-yih added digital convergence and cloud computing. The arguments these two premiers have offered on behalf of these seven or eight industries sound plausible enough. Each of them has long-range plans. Each of them has inter-disciplinary plans. Each plan includes page after page of slide presentations submitted to the Executive Yuan. But plans are plans, and briefings are briefings. For the past year or so little progress has been made. If the old electronics industry reaches a bottleneck, but new industries are merely plans on paper, what happens to Taiwan's economic future? How can anyone who cares about Taiwan's economic development not be concerned?

On economic issues, the Democratic Progressive Party has a clear but relatively straightforward problem. Apart from sporadic cases as the Number Four Nuclear Plant, or the DuPont Plant for Lukang, the DPP is not anti-business as such. The DPP's real Achilles Heel has always been cross-Strait relations. For the past eight years, it was consistently unwilling to confront the Mainland's economic strength and avail itself of the Mainland's economic opportunities. Instead, it excluded Taiwan from the Mainland's economic circle. It forsook the Mainland market, it squandered precious opportunities, it lost the chance to gain an early advantage. But apart from this cross-Strait Achilles Heel, the Democratic Progressive Party, is a fierce and youthful political party. It has fewer systemic shackles than the KMT. Unfortunately this Democratic Progressive Party Achilles Heel is an incurable disease. For years the DPP has remained captive to a tiny contingent of die hard fundamentalists, unable to break free. Even two and a half years in the opposition has not inspired the DPP to reexamine its cross-Strait policies. Beijing is not the only one who sees the DPP as trouble. Most businesses on Taiwan see DPP rule as unconducive to their Mainland operations.

Ma Ying-jeou's Kuomintang of course harbors no hostility toward the Mainland. It feels no obligation to avoid contact with Beijing. But the KMT is one hundred years old. It has accumulated problems and scars far more complex than the DPP's. The KMT is plagued by covert internecine struggle, by complex crony factionalism. It traditionally squelches the ambitions of younger party members. It must mediate between the interests of an Honorary Chairman and an Honorary Vice Chairman. It is plagued by a wide range of illnesses. The causes of these illnesses are difficult to diagnose. Consider some of the new industries. Frankly, the department heads who made many of the original proposals did so under the pressure of deadlines set by the premier. Their content was often mere slogans and abstractions. They contained everything under the sun, but lacked any and all focus. The touched all the necessary bases, but failed to see forest for the trees.

People who understand politics know that to successfully promote a policy, one must have a capable leader who understands what is important and what is not. He must be able to get to the core of the matter. He must be able to follow through, keeping his eye on the ball every step of the way. Allow us to be blunt. Neither of the last two premiers have ever understood the core issues behind the new industries they promoted. Because they never grasped the core issues, they never knew what to keep their eye on, or what direction to take. The aforementioned leaders lacked the ability to implement the policies they promoted. The Presidential Office Financial Advisory Group has been pointing the finger at everyone else. Recently a former premier launched a technology forum. Nominally it will consult with the current Executive Yuan and offer it guidance. Add to this complex, century-old, chronic illnesses and complex entanglements inherent in one party rule, and it is little wonder Wong Chi-huey is concerned about industrial development.

The road ahead for Taiwan industries is going to be rough. In 2008, fears of a heart attack were allayed. But if new policies cannot be implemented, kidney failure looms. Wong Chi-huey said he saw "neither vision nor content" in the government's industrial policy. This is a revealing characterization from the leader of a leading academic institution. Shouldn't the ruling administration wake up? Shouldn't it address the problem?

太偏電子 產業政策困境待解
2010-09-16
中國時報

中央研究院院長翁啟惠在九月十一日與工商代表的一次會議中，一反以往木訥寡言的學者作風，發聲批評當前的產業政策。翁院長指出，台灣的產業政策太偏向電子業，但電子業的許多領域卻又將重心放在利潤微薄的代工，著重量產管理與精密度掌握；這樣的單面向執著恐怕是不利於台灣經濟發展的。

如所周知，過去卅年電子業是台灣經濟發展最重要的金雞母，已經為我們下了許許多多的金蛋。如今，電子雞母年歲已高，下蛋孵蛋的能耐大不如前。由日前鴻海與仁寶負責人對未來前景的保守發言，我們也大致觀察到電子產業所面臨的瓶頸，與翁院長所述情境大致相合。

這樣的產業困境政府官員不是沒有看到，但令人感慨的是，問題雖然明顯呈現，但解決問題的努力卻完全不能劍及履及；至少在過去兩年多，我們實在看不到多少產業布局的進程。

早在一年五個月之前，當時的行政院長劉兆玄就大張旗鼓地提出六大新興產業的口號，包括生技、綠能、文創、觀光、國際醫療、精緻農業。去年九月吳敦義接任之後，又新添了數位匯流與雲端運算等方向。前後兩任行政院長所提七、八種產業方向每一項都言之成理，每一個產業也都提出了願景規畫，跨部會支援方向等計畫，每個計畫也都有數十頁精美投影片提報行政院通過。但規畫歸規畫、簡報歸簡報，一年多下來就是沒什麼進展。如果舊有的電子業瓶頸已現，但新興產業卻又遙不可及，那麼台灣的經濟前景究竟在哪裡呢？關心台灣經濟發展的人，又怎麼能不憂心呢？

就經濟議題而言，民進黨的毛病非常清楚，但也相對單純。除了核四與杜邦等零星個案之外，民進黨未必有什麼嚴重的反商情節，其真正病入膏肓的罩門，就是「兩岸」。民進黨八年來始終不敢面對、正視中國大陸的經濟實力與機會，將台灣的經濟布局自外於中國板塊之外，拋棄了市場、浪費了機會、也流失了布局的契機。除了兩岸罩門之外，民進黨畢竟是生猛年輕，比較沒有來自體制內的其他羈絆與束縛。但遺憾的是，這兩岸罩門的宿疾民進黨就是無力根治，數年來始終在少數基本盤意識形態的裹脅下難以掙脫。即使下野兩年半了，該黨的兩岸論述依然不見起色，不但對岸視民進黨為麻煩，恐怕絕大多數的台灣企業也視該黨執政不利於企業在對岸的布局。

馬英九先生所領導的國民黨當然沒有敵視中國、迴避與對岸接觸的包袱，但百年國民黨所累積的問題與病兆，卻比民進黨要複雜得多。國民黨裡有陰柔的鬥爭文化、有繁複的裙帶派系、有壓抑年輕人出頭的傳統、更有榮譽主席、副主席等一大掛需要「平衡」考量的利益，病兆千絲百結、病因難以清解。就幾大新興產業而言，坦白說，當初提案的部會有不少都是在閣揆壓力下限期提出，其內容有不少是現有部會作為的口號化與抽象化，包山包海卻少有聚焦重點，涵蓋周全卻欠缺直觀視野。

了解政治運作的人都知道，任何一項政策要推動成功，一定要有一位能幹的首長真正的掌握重點、抓到核心，然後一以貫之的「盯」住進度，一步一步地把事情做成。容我們不客氣地指出，兩任閣揆幾大新興產業中有若干項，根本就沒有一位部會首長堪稱抓到產業的核心。既然能力不足抓不到重心，當然就不知道要盯住什麼方向重點。除了前述頗受詬病的部會執行力，總統府裡有財經諮詢小組指東指西，最近又由前任行政院長成立個科技論壇另起爐灶，以諮詢為名對現任行政院下指導棋。再加上種種複雜百年黨政文化的宿疾糾纏，也難怪關心產業發展的翁院長要心急如焚了。

台灣產業前景真是坎坷，二○○八驅走了一個兩岸驚恐心臟病，卻又來了新政策執行無力的腎衰竭。翁院長說，他看不出台灣產業政策的「前瞻性與具體內容」。這樣露骨的描述出自國家最高學術機關首長之口，主政者難道還不該警惕，力求改變局勢嗎？