Here's a joke. An Englishman, a German, and an American come to work in Taipei. The first thing the Englishman does is make himself a cup of tea. The German measures the garage for his Mercedes. And the American starts by writing a letter to the government demanding a level playing-field for overseas companies in Taiwan.
This whimsy is inspired by the appearance of the annual "White Paper" published by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Taipei, an event that always attracts wide publicity and discussion. The paper itself consists of three parts. The first is a list of issues that AmCham regards as being of prime importance. The second is an essay, and its quality is invariably admirable: balanced, thoughtful, thorough, and detailed, it is required reading for anyone who seeks a bird's-eye view of what has been happening in Taiwan over the previous twelve months and what is likely to happen there in the future. The final part consists of abridged reports from committees concerned with specialty sectors such as banking and telecommunications, and in many ways this is the kernel of the project, because it is here that AmCham lists recommendations for change. Some of the suggestions, it has to be said, are a little surprising.
For example, this year's section on Intellectual Property and Licensing says this: "Revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure will take effect on July 1, 2001, such that search and seizure orders will in principle have to be issued by judges. This will introduce one more step in the search and seizure procedure, and increase the potential for delays in enforcement." But surely a mature system of law should insist that the right to search and seize can only be granted by a judge who has heard evidence and argument? England's experience with these orders, known there as Anton Pillar orders, has not been altogether happy and has generated a huge amount of case law. By insisting on a judicial filtering process, Taiwan's Ministry of Justice shows commendable restraint rather than a desire to be obstructive.
Some commentators believe that America has changed a lot in the relatively short period since George W. Bush became president. Whether withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming or selling arms to Taiwan, the new order has shown a marked determination to get its views across, sometimes at the risk of seeming roughshod. It is still too early to tell how this new approach will work for the United States, but it does seem to work for AmCham. The day after its most recent white paper was published, the Ministry of Finance and the Securities and Futures Commission announced relaxations of the rules governing investment in the Taiwan stock market by overseas concerns, thus evidencing the old adage that the squeaky hinge is the one that gets the oil.
None of this is intended to undermine the obvious value of the white paper, which more than adequately represents the vested interests of the business constituency that paid for it. The points it makes are generally valid, and it is a priceless reference document for government officials anxious to acquaint themselves with the concerns of the foreign community. But the question remains: why is it necessary to present such a trenchant document with so much fanfare?
There are a number of other ways in which AmCham could make these sensitive points. It could circulate the white paper to its members and invite them to follow up the recommendations in their own fields, using their government contacts. It could brief the Cabinet privately on what it thinks needs to be done. A quiet word in the right ear can be extremely effective. But by trumpeting the report to the press at a time when the executive arm is finding it difficult to maneuver, AmCham puts the president and the premier in an invidious position. Do nothing, and it looks as though they are indifferent to attracting foreign investment. Do something, and they will be accused of kowtowing to America's commercial mavens.
Another peculiarity of the high-profile procedure adopted is that it inevitably draws attention to the tone of some of AmCham's recommendations. For example, the first paragraph in part one of the white paper recommends that "the US government should support Taiwan's accession to the WTO on its own merits as soon as possible, and endeavor to ensure Taiwan's compliance with all WTO pre-accession agreements." This is bewildering. How exactly should the US Government "ensure compliance"? Surely not by limiting future arms sales? And is it being suggested here that Taiwan is backsliding in some way? Moreover, the WTO has shown itself perfectly capable of defending its own interests without any assistance from Washington.
What the chamber really fears, of course, is that Taiwan will become marginalized and its members along with it. There is already some evidence of this happening. Many of those who responded to the questionnaire on which the report is based expressed a preference for Shanghai over Taipei as a place to do business, while at the same time criticizing a disinclination on the part of the ROC government to consult with overseas interests when framing legislation (something that does not always happen in Shanghai, either.) Taiwan is in danger of losing its pull. It is not a good place for all American businesspeople across the board; many of them, in the construction industry for example, have already gone, and others are pondering going.
Well, maybe. But the fact remains that Taiwan's commercial future probably lies less with North America than with countries on its doorstep. Nearly every major Taiwan enterprise has an investment on the mainland, the number is growing steadily, and the Cabinet recently announced that restrictions on investment there are to be relaxed. The lack of a regulatory framework in the PRC does not perturb most Taiwanese entrepreneurs in the same way it worries Westerners. For Chinese businesspeople, certain truths hold true everywhere. A contract represents the beginning, not the end, of negotiations. Personal and social contact counts for much more than hours spent in the boardroom or at trade fairs. A facilitator is entitled to be paid a commission, under whatever name. Some outsiders find it easier to work around such local cultural peculiarities than others. Some people always will.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here. Not everyone remembers the name of the man who popularized the old adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." But they all know that he was an American.