Interesting news today on possible technology collaboration between Taiwan and the PRC:

More than 40 executives from local firms are in Beijing to discuss standards for cellphones, audio-visual systems, portable storage devices and LCDs

Taiwanese and Chinese companies such as DBTEL Inc (大霸) and Lenovo Group Ltd (聯想) are seeking to cooperate on development of formats for mobile phones, flat panels and other digital devices to compete with European and US standards.

China has been struggling with its policy on standards (especially for wireless technology) for a while now – on the one hand, it has started getting involved in global standardisation processes for future generations, but on the other has been trying to develop its own standards so that it doesn’t get locked in to standards developed in the West. However, things haven’t gone so smoothly with its homegrown standards:

• In 2003, China announced that any wireless computer (WiFi) equipment sold in China would have to support its proprietary (and secret) encryption standard called WAPI. Any company wishing to sell into China would have to license a solution from one of a handful of Chinese companies who were allowed to develop the system. After a long argument, many companies (most notably Intel) said they would stop selling their products in China if this was enforced – which finally forced China to back down, and scrap it’s plans for WAPI.[*]
• Ever since the late 90s, China has been working on its own 3G mobile phone system (called TD-SCDMA), which is free of all the patents held by US and European companies. Although they had some success in getting some Western countries to invest in this, it has been taking a long time to develop this system – and recent tests have shown there are still a lot of problems to be ironed out. Luckily, takeup of Western 3G systems has also been slow, but nevertheless, China’s system is seen to be 2 or 3 years behind the competition.

In this light, it makes a lot of sense for China to partner with Taiwan on development of more ‘home grown’ standards. Taiwan has plenty of experience which could help China, and of course Taiwanese companies are as keen to exploit the China market as any.

*Note that one suspected reason for the WAPI standard was that the PRC had build in a ‘back door’ which would allow them to listen in on anything transmitted using WAPI – a wireless extension to the great firewall. Rebecca may be interested to note that Cisco was one of the companies who didn’t complain about this, and would have been happy to implement it in their products.

From the department of stupid ideas:

Speaking on the same day the International Olympic Committee tapped London as the city to host the 2012 Olympic Games, Premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) yesterday told the public Taiwan should campaign to stage the 2020 Olympic Games.

Although Taiwan has successfully hosted sporting events like the baseball World Cup in 2001, and has won the rights to host the 2009 World Games (these games involve such well-known sports as ‘artistic roller skating’, ‘dance sports’ and ‘tug-of-war’) in Kaohsiung, something tells me that bidding for the Olympics is a recipe for disaster.

Of course, this is more likely to be an effort by the government to get the KMT to oppose an Olympic bid (thus showing their true unpatriotic nature) as well as to get the PRC to shut out any Taipei bid (thus showing the unjust treatment of Taiwan by China). The idea of a bid will no doubt sink without a trace after a bit of a slanging match between the DPP-KMT and foaming at the mouth by the PRC.

For an insight into the depth of political analysis in the Chinese-language press about Taiwan, head on over to ESWN for an article about the ‘missing government in Taiwan’. The article he translates is basically an anti-Chen Shui Bian rant with little or no facts to back it up, and is, unfortunately, pretty indicative of the level of discourse here in Taiwan. Now go and read Michael Turton’s excellent rebuttal, to show how fact-free it really is.

A few points that sprang out at me in addition to Michael’s comments:

• The basic premise ‘The government of Taiwan is MIA’ is actually painfully true. Literally speaking it’s true (one of the 5 branches of government has been inactive for 5 months now), and pragmatically speaking it’s also pretty true (there has been such a deadlock between the KMT-controlled legislature and the DPP-controlled executive that a record low number of pieces of legislation have been passed). This deadlock, caused by an inability of the Greens and Blues to find any middle ground goes to the core of the political problem in Taiwan. However, because it’s a murky issue (with blame on both sides), it doesn’t fit in to the anti-DPP screed which ESWN reproduced.
• How can anyone start a paragraph with the sentence The “old ten great projects” included items such as the CKS airport, and not follow up with an analysis of the built-in nepotism of those projects (which were started by CKS’s son)? I doubt the writer noticed the irony. I don’t think anyone would dispute that those ten projects were very beneficial to Taiwan’s development – but you’d have to be incredibly naive to think they didn’t benefit those in power (and their friends) more. Of course, the level of public scrutiny of projects started while the country was under martial law compared to the new projects (started in a fully democratic society) is incomparable.

Finally, in ESWN’s disclaimer (“It wasn’t written by me, and I don’t really know anything about Taiwan anyway”), he makes the odd claim:

If they think that universal suffrage will solve all problems, then they are quite wrong; it had better be universal suffrage with some attention against the invasion of special interests beforehand or else it will be too late afterwards.

While I agree that universal suffrage isn’t a magic cure, I think he’s got this completely wrong. The one-party rule of the KMT was an invasion of special interests – and democracy (along with a free press which allows Nan Fang-shuo to write articles like this) is the only cure that I can think of. Public scrutiny and an ability to vote out the worst offenders is the best antidote to corruption – it takes time, and it’s imperfect, but it does work.