Obstructing AUO Advance on Mainland Merely Helps South Korea

Obstructing AUO Advance on Mainland Merely Helps South Korea
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 15, 2010

The Chen regime ruled for eight years, Despite rampant corruption, the DPP undoubtedly intensified "nativist" sentiment on Taiwan. This exaggerated concern for nativist identity, has led to an exaggerated Sinophobia. Politically hostility is already a problem. This hostility has naturally carried over to the realm of economics. The Chen regime's policy could be euphemistically described as "jie ji yong ren," or "be patient, avoid haste." Less euphemistically, it was a Closed Door Policy that tried to isolate Taiwan from the Mainland. Under this kind of atmosphere, the Chen regime boycotted all manner of Mainland talent, including Mainland students. It imposed all manner of restrictions on Mainland investments on Taiwan. It also prevented Taiwan-based businesses from building plants on the Mainland.

Ma Ying-jeou has promoted ECFA since taking office. Relations with the other side are generally positive. But even he has failed to ameliorate the hostility in cross-Strait economic relations. Actual trade has not been liberalized as much as anticipated. Many officials in the Ministry of Economic Affairs fail to view cross-Strait economic and trade interactions in a rational light. Flat panel maker AUO hopes to invest in plants on the Mainland. Review of its request in the Ministry of Economic Affairs has dragged on for over a year, This represents the continuation of such an atmosphere.

If one truly wishes to ascertain whether AUO as a company ought to build plants on the Mainland, one must begin by examining the flat panel industry. Flat panels are categorized according to size, into large, medium and small panels. Large panels include large rear projection advertising billboards. Medium panels include televisions and computer monitors. Small panels include cell phones or automobile control panels. Among these three categories, demand for large panels is global in nature, but volume is limited. Medium and small panels meanwhile, are used in TVs or mobile phones. Most factories are in Taiwan and South Korea. Therefore the struggle over panels between AUO and Samsung also involves the mobile phone and TV manufacturing industries. When the ruling administration reviews AUO's request to build plants on the Mainland, it must understand the panel makers' relationship to other industries, upstream and downstream.

Consider technology industries related to the panel industry. The major players are South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. As far as intellectual property is concerned, Japan still has a number of advantages. South Korea's Samsung however, has been gaining ground. Regarding upstream and downstream integration in home appliances, Japan's SONY and SHARP have integrated their upstream and downstream production lines. South Korea's Samsung has also integrated its internal operations. In recent years, it has left the Japanese gasping for air. Taiwan's AU Optronics and Chi Mei are major panel makers. But in home appliances their vertical integration clearly pales before South Korea.

When Beijing first encouraged Taiwan's home appliance makers to sell their products on the Mainland, Taiwan's home appliance manufacturers and panel makers received many orders. One reason of course was that Beijing was making concessions for Taiwan's sake. But another reason was strategic considerations regarding vertical integration and competition. If Mainland home appliance makers purchased Samsung panels, future home appliances would have been one half Samsung in origin. Having home electrical appliances either one half Samsung in origin or 100% manufactured by Samsung in its own factories, posed an awkward coopetition problem. In view of this, Beijing wanted to concentrate on manufacturing panels. It had no intention of total integration with AUO. First, it reduced some of its concerns over competition. Secondly, it evaded the nasty clutches of Samsung's panels. Thirdly, it ate into Samsung's strength in home appliances. Based on such considerations, Beijing welcomed AUO with open arms. It looked forward to cooperation with Taiwan. Presented with this great opportunity, what did the Ministry of Economic Affairs do? It procrastinated for a full year. It then compounded its mistake by invoking the stupid curse of "比台灣本地少一世代." Its behavior was stupid beyond belief.

Viewed objectively, the Ma Ying-jeou administration loosened restrictions on cross-Strait economic transactions only superficially. It failed to eliminate remnants of the DPP regime. It continued perceiving the Mainland as implacably hostile. Many industries are engaged in industrial competition. Taiwan's enemy is not necessarily the Mainland. It could be Japan. It could be Uncle Sam. It could be Europe. Most likely however, it is South Korea. The Ministry of Economic Affairs appears confused about this. Under the influence of populist demagoguery, it persists in pointing the finger at Beijing. It invokes the principle of "低一世代" and forces AUO to disarm. These officials are in effect acting as agents of South Korea's Samsung. Their mission is apparently to undermine rather than support Taiwan's industries. Koreans watch as the ROC Ministry of Economic Affairs erects endless barriers to AUO's effort to build plants on the Mainland. They must be feeling a glee beyond description. They must be wondering how Taiwan's officials could be so stupid. Who can blame Guo Tai-ming for chewing them out?

Flat Panels are not wafers. They are not manufactured in accordance to customer specifications. Their manufacture is purely a matter of cost and efficiency. The Ma administration is apparently impotent in the face of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. It had better clear its head. It had better stop fooling around. Cross-Strait liberalization is a foregone conclusion. The Ma administration must not do things halfway. As it waffles endlessly, neither fighting nor surrendering, neither making peace nor going its own way, it teeters on the brink of lost opportunity. Taiwan's industries have been thrashed by Samsung. If Taiwan's officials still refuse to sober up, what more can we do but lay down our pens and sigh?

阻礙友達登陸 只是讓南韓偷笑
2010-12-15 中國時報

扁政府執政八年，不論其貪贓枉法的諸多事件，民進黨對於台灣「本土意識」的強化，絕對有重大的影響。但是這種本土意識太過強調，就產生對於中國大陸過分的敵視或恐懼。政治上既然如此敵視，經濟上當然也就比照施為；其對應政策講客氣是戒急用忍、說嚴重則是鎖國自閉。在這種氣氛之下，扁政府期間不僅對中國各種人才或學生全面抵制、對中方來台投資諸多設限、也對於台灣赴對岸投資設廠千阻百擋。

馬英九上台後雖然推動ＥＣＦＡ、與對岸善意互動，但似乎仍未撼動兩岸經濟的敵視基調，實質的經貿開放並沒有想像中多，而很多經濟部官員在心態上也還沒有理性看待兩岸之間的經貿互動。此次友達前往投資面板廠之審查，整整在經濟部拖了一年多時間，其實正是此種氛圍的延續。

如果真要分析友達這家公司該不該赴大陸設廠，就要從面板這個「產業」切入探討。面板的使用依其尺寸分為大、中、小三種，其大者如背投影廣告看板、中者如電視機與電腦顯示器、小者如手機或汽車的操控顯示器。這三種規格中，大面板的需求遍布全球但數量較為有限，但中、小兩種規格的使用多為電視或手機，其製造廠皆為台灣與韓國。因此，友達與三星之間的面板鬥爭，也牽涉到手機業與電視機製造業。行政當局在審核友達赴陸案時，必須要對整個面板的上下游產業鏈之間的競合關係有所了解。

就面板有關的科技產業而言，檯面上相關的主要參與者就只有韓、日、中、台四個國家。就智財而言，日本仍然擁有若干優勢，但韓國三星已有後來居上之勢。就電器的上下游整合而言，日本的SONY、SHARP等都有廠內從上游到下游的結合生產線，韓國三星更是以廠內整合著稱，近年來將日本廠打得喘不過氣來。台灣的友達與奇美雖然是面板的大廠，但電器的垂直整合能力明顯不及韓國。

在前一波中共家電下鄉的活動中，台灣的家電製造廠與面板廠都拿到了不少訂單，其原因固然有中共的「讓利」考量，但也有垂直整合與競爭的策略思維。大體而言，如果大陸的家電廠採購了三星面板，將來生產出來的家電就有大約二分之一的三星「血統」。這樣二分之一的三星貨與百分之百三星廠內製家電之間，就有極為詭異的競合問題。有鑑於此，中國大陸打從心底就希望能夠與專心製造面板、無意全機整合的友達合作，一則免去部分競合顧慮、二則驅逐令人討厭的抓耙仔三星面板，三則侵蝕三星「整機」家電的部分實力。準此，中國大陸展開雙臂歡迎友達投資，期待中台合作。但如此絕佳的機會，居然被經濟部硬生生拖了一年，最後再加上一個「比台灣本地少一世代」的笨蛋緊箍咒，真是蠢到了極點。

從客觀事實來看，馬英九政府兩岸開放經濟政策的鬆綁，其實只是鬆掉了表面，並沒有袪除民進黨政府所遺留、將對岸視為必然敵對的潛規則。在產業競爭的情境中，有許許多多的產業，台灣的敵人都未必是中共，可能是日本、可能是老美、可能是歐洲，但最可能的一定是韓國。經濟部若是看不清楚這一點，而硬是在民粹歪風下將矛盾指向中共，再以「低一世代」原則逼著友達繳械，那麼這些財經官員根本就像是韓國三星派來的特工，其任務似乎是要打擊（而非扶持）台灣產業。韓國人看到台灣經濟部三推四擋五搓六卡的阻礙友達登陸，心理的爽度真是不可言喻。台灣官員笨成這樣，挨郭台銘罵幾句誰曰不宜？

面板可不像晶圓，沒有什麼客製規格的特殊性，一切都是以成本及效率論勝負。馬政府面對這麼樣無能的經濟部主管，可得回回神，不能再被唬弄了。兩岸開放當然該做，但要做就不能容許做半套，不戰不降不和不走，一蹉跎就先機盡失。台灣被三星抓耙仔幹成這樣官員還不清醒，我們也只能擲筆三歎了。