社會觀察 . 獨立評論 . 多元觀點 . 公共書寫 . 世代翻轉

  • Home
  • English
  • 評論
  • 民意
  • 時事
  • 生活
  • 國際
  • 歷史
  • 世代
  • 吶喊廣場
  • 轉載
  • 投稿須知

Can Taiwan Handle a Trump-like Tycoon as President?

  • English Article
  • 時事
  • 民意

It’s true that Gou is still an unknown political entity, and – if elected – he may end up shocking the pundits and fighting China until his last breath in the name of Taiwan’s independence.

Terry Gou, a straight-talking businessman with a mercurial temper, no political experience, a disdain for the government of his country, and a vast personal fortune at his disposal is running for president. Sound familiar?

Gou and Trump. Image source: Yahoo News
Gou and Trump. Image source: Yahoo News

Just like current US prez Donald Trump – whose successful 2016 run is said to be his inspiration for entering the political fray – Gou is one the wealthiest people in his nation, Taiwan, with his net worth estimated at US$8 billion. Putting aside the issue of where exactly Gou’s loyalties lie (his company, Foxconn, is an integral part of the economic landscape of China, employing over a million workers there, while he himself has met with the upper echelons of the CCP, including Xi Jinping), a more pertinent question is whether or not Taiwan really needs a businessman running the show.

While some voters dissatisfied with the current political situation there – like many who voted for Trump in 2016 – may jump at the chance of electing a businessman to shake up the system, if we’ve learned anything from Trump’s term in office, it’s that electing a headstrong billionaire with no experience will certainly shake things up, but not necessarily in a good way …

So far, the US mogul’s presidency has been characterized by unprecedented chaos and confusion, as Trump “has the record for White House staff turnover, for cabinet turnover and … for the highest turnover within a single department,” according to scholar Kathryn Dunn Tenpas. Pick up a newspaper on any given day, and you’re sure to read about the latest scandal or controversy unfolding in the administration. So while it may sound like a good idea to elect a political outsider to drain ‘the swap’, the reality is much more complex than that. In the case of Trump, at least, it’s seems as though his hardnosed corporate leadership style has not translated all that well into the government realm, resulting in serious instability at the top.

Additionally – if Trump’s actions are in any way indicative – a profit-first (principles-second) CEO-type leader may not always obey the ethical rules and guidelines of an advanced democracy, which exist to keep the various governing powers in balance. To mention only a few examples: Trump’s dubious firing of the Director of the FBI, James Comey, when he wasn’t happy with the direction the Russia investigation against his campaign was taking; his continual lambasting of the press when they produce stories he doesn’t like; and his administration’s blanket refusal to cooperate with the investigations of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, whose traditional function is to provide oversight of the executive branch. Basically, the attitude of a hardcore businessman towards to the well-honed machinery of government seems to be, “It’s my way or the highway, bub,” and – regardless of which side of the political spectrum you’re on – that can’t be a good thing for democracy.

Finally, just like Trump, who refused to fully separate himself from his business operations upon assuming the presidency, it’s not clear Gou would completely distance himself from Foxconn if elected. In the words of Taiwan political expert Lev Nachman, “In the same way Trump only marginally divested from his assets when he became president, I would not expect Gou to truly move away from his [company]”. Obviously, this creates a major conflict of interest, as the person in charge may be tempted to put his own good above that of the whole. To take just one example of this from Trump’s presidency, many people wonder if there’s a simple – and disturbing – reason he didn’t take a hard line against the Saudi government after the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Could it be because, as he’s said in the past, “I get along great with all of [the Saudis]. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”? Essentially, if you have a wealthy tycoon in office, it may be hard for him to remove himself from his business interests, as politics and commerce are often intertwined. As Nachman says, “I would be greatly concerned with Gou’s ability to separate his business from his political endeavors. Given Foxconn’s position within the Chinese economy and Gou’s political ideals, I’m not sure he even can or wants to.”

It’s true that Gou is still an unknown political entity, and – if elected – he may end up shocking the pundits and fighting China until his last breath in the name of Taiwan’s independence. But then again, Trump was an unknown entity in 2016, and although he claimed to be a populist, so far he’s: (1) signed a tax bill that benefits corporations and upper-income earners over others; (2) obsessively attempted to repeal Obamacare, which mainly aids the poor and uninsured; and (3) led an ongoing campaign of deregulation that’s left more US workers vulnerable to exploitation and injury. But maybe that just proves the truth of the old adage that ‘a leopard never changes its spots’?

Gou, like Trump, is known for attacking the press and charging it with disseminating ‘fake news’, as well as having a harsh personal style – one that recently led him to walk out of a public forum when a DPP lawmaker didn’t look at him while he was speaking. He also seems to have a penchant for controversial quotes, as he once stated that “the harem should not meddle in politics” in reference to his wife’s objections to him running for office (the obvious implication being that a president isn’t so much a servant of the people as an emperor), and has dropped the bombshell that “democracy alone does not provide food to eat.” While this latter statement may technically be true, every voter in Taiwan should be asking themselves: ‘But then what exactly is the alternative?’

Author / Peter K. Thompson

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • More
  • Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

Related

川普 政治 總統大選 郭台銘
2019-05-16 Peter K. Thompson

Post navigation

破解柯文哲的兩岸話術 → ← 民調與初選,鹿死誰手還不一定

Related Posts

線上房貸信貸審核與頻繁拉聯徵:個資外洩風險、話術利率陷阱,算不算「另類詐騙」?

近年銀行把房貸、信貸流程大幅線上化,核額、核貸速度變快,但也讓「聯徵查詢」成為民眾最常忽略的風險點:你不一定清楚何時授權、誰去查、查了幾次、查到哪些資料。聯徵中心提供的「當事人綜合信用報告」本身就會揭露查詢紀錄,包含哪些機構在何時查詢你的信用資料,因此若覺得近期「銀行來電問資金需求」過於密集,第一步應先回到可驗證的查詢紀錄與授權流程。 1) 「頻繁拉聯徵」到底在拉什麼?會影響什麼? 聯徵查詢不只是看你有沒有欠款,也包含負債、授信、遲延等信用資訊。實務上,查詢次數過多容易被金融機構解讀為「短期大量申貸」的訊號,可能影響核貸意願;但要注意,自行查詢聯徵會留下紀錄,通常不會被視為不良申貸行為,關鍵在於「金融機構查詢」是否異常密集,以及你是否在不知情下被多次查詢。 2) 個資外洩疑慮的核心:授權是否清楚、目的是否特定 個資外洩的風險不只來自駭客,更常見的是「授權鏈不透明」:你以為只是接到關懷電話,實際上可能被引導同意查詢聯徵、或把資料提供給外包電銷與合作通路。依台灣個資法的基本原則,蒐集與利用個資需有特定目的、必要範圍,並且要讓當事人知道並能行使權利(例如停止蒐集、停止利用等)。結論很務實:只要授權過程「不清楚」、或用途「超過你同意的範圍」,就會把銀行正常行銷推向個資風險區。 3) 銀行話術與高利率推銷:算不算詐騙? 多數情況下,這不等同刑法上的詐騙,但可能構成「不當招攬/誤導」。判斷點不在你覺得貴,而在於對方是否用不實或易生誤解的說法讓你做出借貸決定,例如: 用「先幫你拉聯徵才知道利率」逼迫授權,卻不清楚告知查詢機構、用途與次數 用極低的「前期優惠」淡化總費用年百分率(APR)或後段利率跳升 把「可貸」說成「已核准」,誘使你先簽約再補件 若招攬資訊不透明、或宣傳內容使人誤認成本與風險,就會落入金融消費者保護的治理範圍。金融消費者保護法要求業者在推介商品或服務時,必須充分說明重要內容,不得有虛偽不實或引人錯誤之表示。 所以更精準的說法是:這類情境常見的是「高壓銷售+資訊不對稱」,不一定是詐騙罪,但可能是不當招攬、甚至違反消保與個資規範。 4) 你可以立刻做的三件事(把風險變成可控) 第一,去申請「當事人綜合信用報告」,核對最近有哪些機構查詢、查了幾次;如果你沒申請任何貸款卻出現密集查詢,就要追授權來源。第二,電話中一律要求對方先用可回查的方式說清楚:本次是否需要聯徵授權、授權目的、查詢機構名稱、查詢一次還是多次;對方若迴避,直接拒絕。第三,若你懷疑有「未經同意查詢」或「不當招攬」,保留通話紀錄、簡訊與錄音,先向該銀行申訴要求調查,再視情況向主管機關或評議機制提出申訴(這能迫使業者提供授權與內控紀錄)。 作者:新公民議會編輯小組

未立遺囑也沒書面承諾時,兄弟姊妹特留份怎麼算?台灣民法計算公式與常見誤解一次講清

在台灣繼承實務裡,兄弟姊妹最常爆炸的情境,不是有遺囑,而是「沒遺囑、只剩口頭交代、還有人先把財產拿走」。此時爭點通常落在兩件事:第一,沒有遺囑就回到法定繼承順序與應繼分;第二,若有人透過生前贈與、暗中移轉把遺產抽空,其他繼承人才會進入「特留份」與「減殺」的攻防。 1) 先判斷:兄弟姊妹是不是「有繼承權」那一層 民法把繼承人分順序;直系卑親屬、父母、兄弟姊妹、祖父母依序遞補,配偶與各順序並存。兄弟姊妹是第三順序繼承人,只有在「沒有子女等直系卑親屬、沒有父母」的前提下才輪得到。 2) 沒遺囑、只口頭說「都給某某」:原則上仍按法定應繼分分 口頭承諾通常不會自動變成有效遺囑;在「沒有有效遺囑」的情況下,遺產就按應繼分切。兄弟姊妹同一順序者,原則上平均分配。 若同時存在配偶,配偶的應繼分依民法規定與該順序共同分配。 3) 特留份在什麼時候才會用到 特留份是「限制被繼承人用遺囑或生前處分把法定繼承人一腳踢開」的最低保障。換句話說: 完全沒遺囑、也沒侵害型贈與 → 直接按應繼分分,通常不需要談特留份。 有遺囑(或大量生前贈與)導致你拿不到該有的最低額度 → 才進入特留份計算與減殺。 4) 兄弟姊妹的特留份比例是多少 民法明文:兄弟姊妹的特留份是「其應繼分的三分之一」。 因此計算核心只有一句:兄弟姊妹特留份 =(你的法定應繼分)× 1/3 5) 三步驟算出兄弟姊妹特留份(含範例) 步驟A:算遺產基礎(遺產總額)遺產先扣除債務等,再進入特留份基礎的計算邏輯。 步驟B:算你的法定應繼分假設沒有配偶、沒有子女、沒有父母,只剩三個兄弟姊妹:每人法定應繼分 = 1/3。 步驟C:乘上 […]

拋棄繼承後悔來不及?一通電話讓他錯失500萬:限定繼承、遺產清冊與三個月期限一次看懂

很多人聽到「長輩欠債」四個字,第一反應就是快逃,深怕債務會追到自己身上。問題不在謹慎,而在恐慌時用錯法律工具。曾有一名在海外工作的子女接到親戚來電,被告知父母驟逝,對方又補上一句「聽說欠了不少錢」。在悲痛與焦慮交疊下,他沒看遺產內容、也沒查負債結構,直接到法院聲請拋棄繼承,以為切割乾淨就能自保。半年後才發現,父母遺產扣除債務仍有約500萬淨資產,而拋棄繼承一經成立,原則上難以撤回,原本應屬於他的財產依法轉到其他順位繼承人手上。這類「一句傳聞換來長期損失」的案例,反映的是台灣社會仍停留在「父債子還」的恐懼記憶,卻忽略民法早已走向以限定繼承為核心的風險隔離。 現行制度下,繼承人通常採「限定繼承」架構,意思是以所繼承的遺產為限清償被繼承人的債務,債權人不能任意追索你的薪資或個人財產。真正的風險在於程序:你若不清點資產負債、不依規定向法院陳報遺產清冊,就可能在債權人追討、清償順序、資訊落差中被拖著走;更麻煩的是,若你私下先還了某個債主、或處分遺產導致其他債權人受損,爭議就可能回到你身上,讓原本可控的限定責任變得複雜難解。 因此,面對遺產事件,正確順序不是先拋棄,而是先查明。第一步要做的不是聽親戚轉述,而是用可查核的資料建立「遺產全貌」:包含不動產、存款、證券、保單、貸款與其他負債。當你掌握資產負債表,才談得上選擇繼承、限定繼承下的清算流程,或在極端情況下才考慮拋棄繼承。第二個關鍵是時間:從知悉得繼承開始起算的三個月期限,是許多家庭翻車的起點。很多人以為「法律會自動保護」,卻忽略法院陳報、公告、債權人申報與清償排序,才是把風險鎖在遺產內的防火牆。第三個常見錯誤是急著協商或先付錢想止血,結果反而破壞公平清償,讓自己站到責任前線。 遺產處理本質上是資訊戰與程序戰:查清再決定、限定繼承也要做清冊、拋棄繼承不可逆。與其用直覺下注,不如用制度把風險切開。當家庭面臨突發喪變,真正該優先保護的不是情緒,而是決策品質;能守住的,往往不是遺產本身,而是依法處理的能力。 作者:千水墨內

拖吊蟑螂橫行北台灣:龜山拖到台北開價8.8萬,為何「道路救援」變成勒索產業?

近年北台灣屢傳「拖吊蟑螂」以道路救援之名收取天價費用,從幾公里索價數萬元,到桃園龜山拖到台北竟開出8.8萬元帳單,讓不少車主在故障、趕時間、情緒慌亂時被迫吞下不合理費用。這類案件之所以反覆出現,不在於民眾不夠警覺,而在於產業鏈把「資訊不對稱」做成了獲利模型:用網路關鍵字廣告攔截需求、用電子合約或空白欄位降低當下辨識成本、再以價目表藏在條款或事後補登方式,把費用拉到車主無法承受的區間。部分報導指出,業者甚至投放關鍵字廣告,讓車主在搜尋「道路救援、拖吊」時最先看到他們,接觸點從一開始就被「引流」鎖定。 從近期揭露內容看,爭議核心往往不是「拖吊有沒有做」,而是「費用如何被定價」。例如有案例顯示,車主事前以為不會超過數千元,結果短短3.7公里被索近4萬元,警方以詐欺方向偵辦並函送。 這類情境高度一致:車主在緊急狀態下先求把車移走,簽名或線上回覆同意後才發現金額暴衝,當場拒付就面臨言語壓力,甚至擔心車輛被扣留、行程被耽誤而被迫妥協。換句話說,「救援」被設計成先完成作業、再啟動計價爭議,車主一旦錯過事前談價與比價的窗口,談判籌碼幾乎歸零。 要壓制拖吊蟑螂,單靠事後辦案不夠,必須直接拆掉獲利機制。第一步是把計價透明化變成硬規定:要求拖吊業者在出車前提供可驗證的「預估總價區間」與「公里費、吊桿費、特殊狀況加價」的明細,並在車主同意後才得作業;任何事後加價必須有現場可舉證的原因與照片紀錄。第二步是對「關鍵字廣告引流」建立監管:平台若要販售道路救援關鍵字,應要求業者提供合法登記、保險、收費表與客服申訴管道,否則不得投放,因為這些廣告本質上已是公共安全的「緊急服務入口」。第三步是提高違規成本:針對「重大落差報價、欺罔簽約、恐嚇取財」等態樣,應建立快速停業、吊照與刑責併行的處置,才能讓不法業者的期望報酬低於風險。 對一般車主而言,最務實的自保策略也很清楚:第一,不用「第一個搜尋結果」就下單,優先使用保險公司或車廠特約道路救援;第二,要求在出車前用文字訊息確認「總價上限」與計價方式;第三,遇到合約空白、費用不寫清楚、或要求先拖再談價,直接拒絕。當制度把透明報價與平台審核做成標配,拖吊市場才會從「灰色勒索」回到真正的公共服務。 作者:新公民議會編輯小組

Recent Posts

線上房貸信貸審核與頻繁拉聯徵:個資外洩風險、話術利率陷阱,算不算「另類詐騙」?

線上房貸信貸審核與頻繁拉聯徵:個資外洩風險、話術利率陷阱,算不算「另類詐騙」?

近年銀行把房貸、信貸流程大幅線上化,核額、核貸速度變快,但也讓「聯徵查詢」成為民眾最常忽略的風險點:你不一定清楚何時授權、誰去查、查了幾次、查到哪些資料。聯徵中心提供的「當事人綜合信用報告」本身就會揭露查詢紀錄,包含哪些機構在何時查詢你的信用資料,因此若覺得近期「銀行來電問資金需求」過於密集,第一步應先回到可驗證的查詢紀錄與授權流程。 1) 「頻繁拉聯徵」到底在拉什麼?會影響什麼? [...]

More Info
未立遺囑也沒書面承諾時,兄弟姊妹特留份怎麼算?台灣民法計算公式與常見誤解一次講清

未立遺囑也沒書面承諾時,兄弟姊妹特留份怎麼算?台灣民法計算公式與常見誤解一次講清

在台灣繼承實務裡,兄弟姊妹最常爆炸的情境,不是有遺囑,而是「沒遺囑、只剩口頭交代、還有人先把財產拿走」。此時爭點通常落在兩件事:第一,沒有遺囑就回到法定繼承順序與應繼分;第二,若有人透過生前贈與、暗中移轉把遺產抽空,其他繼承人才會進入「特留份」與「減殺」的攻防。 1) 先判斷:兄弟姊妹是不是「有繼承權」那一層 [...]

More Info
拋棄繼承後悔來不及?一通電話讓他錯失500萬:限定繼承、遺產清冊與三個月期限一次看懂

拋棄繼承後悔來不及?一通電話讓他錯失500萬:限定繼承、遺產清冊與三個月期限一次看懂

[...]

More Info
拖吊蟑螂橫行北台灣:龜山拖到台北開價8.8萬,為何「道路救援」變成勒索產業?

拖吊蟑螂橫行北台灣:龜山拖到台北開價8.8萬,為何「道路救援」變成勒索產業?

[...]

More Info

搜尋

精選文章

川習會的中美矛盾是戰略,不是貿易!

2017-04-08 韓非

八仙樂園爆炸案:缺乏常識造成的災難

2015-06-28 異想

彰化縣民輪替後的哀與愁

2016-03-06 許家瑋

新文明病:儲物症(Hoarding disorder)似正在增加

2015-04-13 楊庸一

訂閱本站

輸入你的電子郵件訂閱新文章並接收新通知。

Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way
Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way