Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Morris Chang: the 'King' of Taiwanese Chipmakers 94

Posted by Roblimo from the half-your-computer-comes-from-one-small-island dept.
DeepDarkSky writes "This is a general interest story in the NY Times about Morris Chang - the founder and chairman of Taiwan Semiconductor - and the dynamics of semiconductor manufacturing in Taiwan, and how the earthquakes a while back affected it. Since Taiwan is the leading manufacturer of chips, with Intel, Motorola, and IBM (also Transmeta, as I vaguely recall in the press releases) all having chips manufactured in Taiwan, I thought this would be an interesting read. More significantly, also in the NY Times, another story about the U.S. House of Representatives voting to strengthen military ties with Taiwan. Perhaps they are all too aware of the U.S.'s (and the world's) dependence on Taiwan's chip manufacturing prowess (reminded by the earthquakes) and are eager to protect this source against China?" (free NYT reg. req.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Morris Chang: the 'King' of Taiwanese Chipmakers More

Morris Chang: the 'King' of Taiwanese Chipmakers

Comments Filter:

  • Xenophobia rears its ugly head (Score:3)

    by RayChuang ( 10181 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2000 @04:32AM (#1312580)
    Judging from some of the postings on this subject, I think you don't understand why Taiwan has become a huge manufacturer of computer parts.

    Remember the old days when "Made in Taiwan" was considered cheap and poor quality? Well, because the government in Taiwan wanted to get away from that image, they heavily invested in the one industry that will bring them into the 21st Century: electronics.

    The result is obvious--if you open up a desktop computer, look at how much of the computer is made in Taiwan. I'll almost say that the motherboard, the majority of the surface-mounted chips on the motherboard and peripheral cards, the memory modules, the CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drive, the CPU heatsink/fan and the system case are made in Taiwan. Only the hard disk drive and CPU are not likely to be made in Taiwan. Think about it: if your x86-based computer is using an Abit, FIC, Gigabyte, Supermicro or Tyan motherboard, they are all made in Taiwan.

    This is a tribute to the of the people of Taiwan, whose hard work has turned Taiwan into the one of the most influential countries in the computer industry.

    By the way, the People's Republic of China are no slouches in the computer industry, either. They have a very popular (and well-made) brand of computers named Legend that runs the Chinese versions of Windows 95/98 and Linux.

    Don't forget that one of the most popular commercial distributions of Linux--TurboLinux (formerly Pacific Hi-Tech)--originated in Taiwan.

    In short, stop sounding like those protesters at the WTO Summit last year. The xenophobia doesn't work in a world where trade is a fact of life.
  • > Furthermore, certain Senators have indicated that they will advise the President to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk my mistake, the President's National Security Advisors, not senators. just read today's article in the NY Times.
  • Those things aren't left out of low-level American history books for political reasons. They are left out because the people who write history texts (and most other texts) in America are stupid. Some fools think getting an Education degree, with a few rinky-dinky history classes thrown in, qualifies you to teach history and author texts on the subject.
  • The Israelis have been hopelessly outnumbered by the Arabs for 50 years......they also don't have the Taiwan Straits protecting them. If the Taiwanese fight like they have some balls, the Mainland will have to change their "one-child" birth control policy. BTW, they got their asses handed to them when they when up against the Vietnamese 3rd string back in 1979....what makes you think it would be any different today?
    • The problem with national champions is that they know they are too politically important to be allowed to fail.

    The US has many firms, but less all the time due to mergers, that are deemed too politically important to be allowed to fail.

    Chrysler was bailed out once upon a time. Citibank, just a few years ago.

    This is a danger of the new wave of Mega-Mergers that's never mentioned. Funny how the press STILL paints the '80s as the decade of greed and Mega-Mergers while the '90s and now the '00s (the oughts?) has REALLY seen a dramatic increase in huge mergers, CEO salaries and growing disparity between haves and have-nots.

    Don't be fooled. The Media likes Clinton and gives him a pass on this stuff. If Reagan had been president when this was happening every TV News Show would have had nothing BUT how the economy is being manipulated for the benefit of the super-rich.


    -Jordan Henderson

  • The Taiwanese have a significant aircraft production capability-they designed and flew the Ching-Kuo indigenuous fighter successfully; and they produce their own missiles, too. On the other hand; Chinese Air Force is equipped with mostly outdated equipment; which is only changing recently with the addition of Su-27s to the inventory. Still, the majority of Chinese Air Force is Shenyang F-7s (Mig-21 variant) and F-6s (Mig-19 variant). Where little is known about the capabilities of the sepcimens in Chinese service; export versions of these fighters have not proven to be good performers.

    The Taiwanese definitely have the better technology in their armed forces. In their previous aerial clashes; ROCAF's kill rates were phenomenal. I would tend to say that the situation is much like Israel and the Arab nations: Israel has kicked, and will indefinitely continue to kick, the asses of any combination of Arab air forces imaginable. Similarly Taiwan has proven to have an advantage in the skies; it is unfortunately a different matter on sea and land.

    --

    BluetoothCentral.com [bluetoothcentral.com]
    A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
  • Memory -> Taiwan -> Taiwan Earthquake
    Chip -> Taiwan -> Taiwan Security Enhancement Act

    Somehow Slashdot has a tendency to squeeze in anything related to Taiwan. And all the racist remarks whenever any articles related to China is posted.. It's such an enjoyment.

    Seriously, is there a way to kill any stories which have the word "China" in? Sorry, I'm tired of hearing all the senseless ramblings from those hardly know anything about China. It's more painful than the last time I heard racist slurs thrown at me on the street (in the US). At least, I could assume those individuals are semi-intelligent.
    • I must admit I can't back this up, but I seem to have heard as part of the whole DOJ/MS trial hoopla that the budget for the DOJ's Anti-trust department was stretched thin these days. Perhaps there's also a budget-caused staff shortage for the departments that should be overseeing CityBank style Mega-Mergers?

    Congress only sets broad budgets for the DOJ, not individual activities within the DOJ. It can't allocate how much is spent on Anti-Trust. That's an executive function. I think you'll find that the DOJ has RECORD budgets lately. If the Anti-Trust division is short of funds, it is Clinton who is starving the Anti-Trust budgets.

    You don't seem to understand what happened with Citibank/Traveler's. The DOJ, at some expense, actually went out of their way to hand Citibank an exemption to current law. Had they just prosecuted based on the current law they could have easily recovered the cost of prosecution in fines.

    • Living in British Columbia, I certainly wish we had more fiscal responsibility in our government. It's too bad that it is hard to find a party that believes in fiscal responsibility as well as a good balance between the rights of individuals, corporate strength, and the collective good. Libertarians seem to have learned the lessons of the 20th Century well, but seem to want to repeat those of the 19th century instead.

    I'm no Libertarian. Neither am I a Republican, actually. I'm just pointing out the injustice of how Clinton gets a pass on policies in the Press for which Reagan would have been on a skewer.

    We are probably philosophically much alike in that I'm for fiscal responsibility (like balanced budgets, only made possible by the Republican Congress, even though the Press continues to hand the credit to Clinton) and, as you can tell, I'm quite wary of corporate strength and concerned about the rights of individuals.


    -Jordan Henderson

  • The Ching-Kuo fighter is a joke. The internal codename for the plane is IDF, what the acronym stands for I don't remember (I-something defense fighter I think) but it was jokingly reffered to by Taiwanese as "I don't fly".

    MiG-21's are considered to be on par with F-16's (more or less). Taiwan may have a "slight" edge technologically, but it's by no means a large edge. PRC has a HUGE material and human resource advantage over the ROC.
  • Politically incorrect in the sense that it's messing around with intricate relatioship between two other "countries"; and that it hurts the feelings of a lot of people.

    It's almost like us saying that we support the independency of North Ireland and deplore every act of the British Government in the North Ireland as an act to supress the Irish people.

    Is it that hard to understand?
  • No, I didn't do it. But if I had moderation point and I hadn't put any article on, I might have done it mysekf. It is frustrating to see all the trolls (and unfortunately, some semi-intelligent posts) on the other side. So, what the heck! Let's see something opposite got moderated up - just for the fun of it :P.
  • The British government along with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland all have large offices in Taipei trying to bring in Taiwanese investment and factories......remember the scene "Life in the 3rd World" (Yorkshire) in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life"? Rather poetic, isn't it?
  • Very true.

    Pride is dangerous. It makes people do stupid, irrational things. Like the idiots who engage in retribution driving after being cut off in traffic -- they don't accomplish anything for themselves and the endanger everyone around them.

    Should you live your life tiptoeing around other people's personal pride, or run your foreign policy around other people's national pride? Well, in principle you shouldn't have to, but only a fool would not take the possibilities into account. Remember WW I. China might very well decide to kill the goose the laid the golden egg, and possibly drag the entire world into war, and their leaders would even strengthen their political position as they lead their country into hell -- at least until they exceeded the people's endurance. And the Chinese people have tremendous endurance.




  • Try designing an F-16, an M-60 without Autocad.

    Granted, we designed equivalents for WWII without pentium-class desktops, but we won the war because we (read:Allies) created the computing power necessary to crack Enigma.
    _______________________________
  • I would agree with you. Many Americans I know are ashamed about a many great things regarding our country. Our leaders have no moral or ethical constraints, we go around blowing the shit out small defenseless countries (Bosnia) and give crap to others who try to do the same thing (Chechnya/Tibet/etc).

    As far as the trade/imperialist idea of shoving bad things down other countries throats (such as cigarattes) the American people also suffer from it. Advertising cannot be escaped, phone, snail mail, email, radio, TV, its everywhere, and it invades our senses like a something rotten...

    We are talking about 3 seperate things:
    1. American Government (yuck)
    2. Massive INTERNATIONAL corporations (double yuck) ( I happen to work for ING, a Dutch financial group of companies which has more money than most countries)
    3. American People (most of whom are decent and just want to be left alone).
    3a. I would also add that most People anywhere are decent and just want to be left alone.

    Im sure you heard about the demonstrations at Seattle re WTO. We dont like it either.

    You mentioned giving food to starving Africans, but only if they quit having kids. Whats wrong with that? Am I responsible for the poor resource management of someone in some other country? If some people or country cant feed their people, am OBLIGATED to help? No I sure as hell am not. I WILL help, because I WANT TO, but I dont want to have to help twice as many people the next time.

    You dont like handouts with conditions? Then dont ask for em.

    This brings up another subject which chaps my ass.
    The current peace process going on re Isreal.
    Isreal seems to think the US should give them about $16Billion dollars in military (including Stealth Technology) and financial aid, or they won't accept the peace process.

    Jews and Arabs have been fighting since the time of Abraham, and they are going to keep fighting until the end of time. Why the hell should I(yes me, my taxes) cough up cash so two little spoiled brats will stop fighting and play nice?

    Piss on them! Let em blow each other hell if they want, I am tired of working my ass off so the rest of the world can get free rides.

    By the way, my "fat grease burger white ass" as so you eloquently put it happens to provide financial aid to 6 people...mostly children in developing nations. They get an education, decent food and a sense that someone cares. Again, because I want too, not because I am obligated to.

    Besides, where do you come from? Nothing bad ever happens where you are? Your government has never done anything bad to anyone? No attrocites? No genocide? No forced relocations?

    Anonymous Coward indeed.

  • No country I know of is afraid to criticize US trade policy when it's heavy-handed or unfair. Do you have an example in mind?

    In fact, I do. A short while ago [read: months ago], Micron (and a few others, I believe) began dumping some of their excess PC100/PC133 chips into Taiwan's economy, thus *really* screwing w/ the low prices there. Taiwan, in turn, turned to either the US's Trade Dept. or WTO for a judgement on the RAM dumping practice. Since then, I haven't heard anything about the outcome.

  • Pride is dangerous. It makes people do stupid, irrational things.

    Case in point, Pat Buchannan(sp?) has his whole campaign based around national pride (ala Hitler) because "those Yellow @#$$es keep shoving their chopsticks down our throats." First of all, I believe the US produces quite a bit of chopsticks for the foreign market w/ ashwood leftover from deforestation projects. Second, he forgets the exports others consume (airliners, chip-making machinery/equipment, grains, McDonald's/KFC/etc., Hollywood movies, and a whole lot more). But then again, I never expected these Fire-eaters to actually get any attention/votes (unfortunately, I also forgot about the condition of the American education system).

  • Eh, considering that the original poster does seem to have the facts somewhat backwards, I'd have to give him a little credit w/ regards to the KMT gov't. You'd probably never read this in American textbooks (due to political reasons), the KMT did commit some attrocities on those Taiwanese who were on the island before they arrived. Often these involved the military abducting civilians opposed to Nationalist rule and some were never to be heard from again. Quite sad. What's even sadder is that the US never confronted the KMT about it (much like the US w/ Japan's activities, both toward neighboring Asian nations as well as American soldiers).
  • These are Vietnam-era designs with outdated avionics and weapons systems, and poor fuel economy. Their flight performance is reasonable (just don't expect much range from them!), but F-16's kick their rear in a variety of ways, as has been demonstrated in combat over Lebanon against Syrian-flown MiG-21's. Heck, even F-4 Phantoms are competitive against MiG-21's (again demonstrated in combat by the Israelies).

    Modern fighters are airborne anti-aircraft missile launch platforms first, and dogfighters second. The MiG-21 is a reasonable dogfighter, but that doesn't matter if it's been swept from the sky by a missile before ever reaching cannon range. And a crew properly trained to take advantage of that ordinance and avionics advantage can make a single F-16 the equal of four MiG-21's (if it could carry more ordinance the advantage could be even more).

    I don't know the state of Taiwan's air force, whether they have the up-to-date training and ordinance to take advantage of the platform, and the numbers advantage definitely goes to the PRC, but to state that the MiG-21 is somehow "on par" with the F-16 is a joke.

    -E

  • Mao made Hitler look like a humanitarian.

    So, you're implying that it's worse to kill your own people than it is to murder someone else's people? I'll make no excuses for Mao, but the "Great Leap Forward" was about industrial progress, IIRC, and the Cultural Rev. was the one responsible for the murders/killings (note that most deaths occured due to the famine that took place whereas the murders were against the wealthy/intellectuals. So, whereas Hitler intended to murder 10 million people, Mao only intended to murder those with the power (very concentrated pop.) to overthrow him.

  • Give me a break. The Mig-21 design originated in the late 1950s-early 1960s; has been used in Vietnam and Middle East wars, and has been beaten badly in all cases. A Mig-21 is in no way comparable to an F-16A/B, let alone later F-16C/D's.

    Shenyang F-7 is a different beast than the Mig-21 though, and later models have improved different wing structures, powerplant and avionics; but they are still no match for F-16s since they don't have BVR(beyond visual range) missile capabilities; like the F-16s have recently gained with AIM-120 AMRAAM.

    I think it just suffices to say the Mig-21 was replaced in early 1970s with the Mig-23 in Soviet service; which in turn was replaced by the Mig-29 in early 1980s. Which means the Mig-21 is now two generations back.

    Still, the Chinese can produce weaponry at incredibly cheap costs; and they have millions of people who they will easily sacrifice for the People's good. The Germans definitely had the technological edge in WWII in the Russian front, but ultimately Russian "human-wave" tactics got them. Nobody knows if a modern fleet of F-16s have any chance against, say, 2,500 ancient Migs.

    --

    BluetoothCentral.com [bluetoothcentral.com]
    A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
  • ...and thank god they did, or a large portion of China's history might have been lost. You forget that not long after the revolution, the Red Guard took it upon itself to discredit and destroy anything related to the old order -- including places, people, and said historical relics.

    BTW, Most important among these historical relics are China's imperial treasures. It was the Nationalists who packed up these treasures during WWII to protect them from the Japanese, and again after the civil war to protect them from the Communists. The imperial treasures are important not only as priceless examples of art and history, but as symbols of Imperial rule that at one time lent legitimacy to whoever posessed them.

    In 1996 they were shown in the US, where they were exhibited in a tour titled, "The Splendours of Imperial China". The collection visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.

  • Give me a break. The Mig-21 design originated in the late 1950s-early 1960s; has been used in Vietnam and Middle East wars, and has been beaten badly in all cases. A Mig-21 is in no way comparable to an F-16A/B, let alone later F-16C/D's.

    Shenyang F-7 is a different beast than the Mig-21 though, and later models have improved different wing structures, powerplant and avionics; but they are still no match for F-16s since they don't have BVR(beyond visual range) missile capabilities; like the F-16s have recently gained with AIM-120 AMRAAM.

    I think it just suffices to say the Mig-21 was replaced in early 1970s with the Mig-23 in Soviet service; which in turn was replaced by the Mig-29 in early 1980s. Which means the Mig-21 is now two generations back.

    Still, the Chinese can produce weaponry at incredibly cheap costs; and they have millions of people who they will easily sacrifice for the People's good. The Germans definitely had the technological edge in WWII in the Russian front, but ultimately Russian "human-wave" tactics got them. Nobody knows if a modern fleet of 160 F-16s have any chance against, say, 2,500 ancient Migs.

    --

    BluetoothCentral.com [bluetoothcentral.com]
    A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
  • > Their flight performance is reasonable (just don't expect much range from them!),

    The Taiwan Strait is quite narrow, you don't need much range. I think 200 klicks at the widest point.

    > And a crew properly trained to take advantage of that ordinance and avionics advantage can make a single F-16 the equal of four MiG-21's (if it could carry more ordinance the advantage could be even more).

    True. However, the PRC outnumbers the ROC 25 to 1 in the air, so a 4 to 1 kill ratio is not enough. Keep in mind that this outnumbering is ONLY in the Fujian military district (the province nearest Taiwan). PRC can move in more planes from other provinces easily. PRC has more than enough hardware to take Taiwan by force several times over.
  • The kill ratio for F-16's should be more than 4-1 when used by properly trained pilots with modern weapons against poorly-trained PRC pilots flying archaic fighters -- *IF* there's a place for the F-16's to run to where they can get refueled and reloaded with missiles without getting bombed while on the ground, and *IF* there's an adequate supply of such missiles in the first place. Big "ifs".

    -E

  • Hello All!

    Ok, so I am a bit biased, because I live in Taiwan. Not as a Taiwan national, but as an expat who has spent 8 years here living it out here on this little island. I have toured about 2,000 factories in all on this "little island", of which a good 15 to 20 were fabs or tech firms.

    Taiwan is a great place, you can come here and just look up some factory, call them up and visit. You can take a look at an 8" fab, or a DVD-RAM line, or a PCB maker, or a plain old plastic injection molding factory with a phone call and a nice attitude. Taiwan is a manufacturing powerhouse, not only in the solid state industry, but in just about everything you can think of.

    Sure, there is gov't money behind industry here, but is that so different from any other country in the world? No, the US has Boing, Germany has Mercedes, Japan has NEC, Korea has Samsung, and on and on and on. Government is run by business in the world and so what?

    Morris is a visionary because he brought new vision and a new business focus for Taiwan's great entreprenurial spirit. He took the best of what he saw as opportunity at Texus Instruments and brought it back to Taiwan with him, in the form of a dream and a vision. He became the leader in the race to make Taiwan the leader ahead of Korea, Asia, and yes, Japan as a technology manufacturing foundry.

    This is nothing new. Taiwan did the same thing with petrochemicals in the late 70's and 80's. Taiwan did the same thing with steel. Taiwan is a very special place in the world, because of its flexibility and extreme ability to move markets through the niches.

    Taiwan will drive world prices of anything down, because it is a world supplier. Through this great service that it does to the world, it gets rich. Yes, Taiwan is very rich indeed, all becuase of its wonderful flexibility and willingness to change.

    If Taiwan were not flexible, you would still see a plethora of textile factories here instead of the numerous fabs and science parks one sees popping up all over the island now adays!

    What does Taiwan lack in the solid state field?
    1. design
    2. brand marketing
    3. upstream suppliers (ie: fab equipment manufacturers, as it all comes from the U.S. and Europe)

    This could change as well, as the industry is really just a baby when compared to the U.S. and Europe.

    Ciao,



  • Here's a viewpoint from a Taiwanese American unix geek, if there is such a thing.

    The currect Taiwan Administration once ruled the entire China. Sepcifically, from 1911-1949. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Chinese national flag and national anthem during this period and you will know that it's exactly the same as those of Taiwanese today. As a matter of fact, a huge chunk of Taiwan population is moved from China during 1947-1949, right after WWII.

    I can tell you, that Taiwanese look more like Chinese than many actual Chinese people, such as those close to Turkey boundary.

    Taiwanese would love to be Chinese again if China is as great as America. We are the same race, we speak the same language, we look indistinguishable. And, the most important factor is that Taiwan is too small of an island to build ANYTHING of a big scale. We cannot build cars, for example. We can only build chips and little stuff like PCs because of the resource contraint. That is why lots of Taiwanese bussiness invest captical in China before the stupid Chinese govn't tighten up the policy. But, who would want to be ruled by communist these days? As a Taiwanese, I feel that the Communist govenment is poor, corrupt, violent, and most of all, DUMB.

    On the scale of 0 to 9, if 0 means completely capitalist, such as Hong Kong, 9 means completely socialist, then the U.S.A would sit around 3.5, Taiwan will be aroung 1.5. China will be maybe 8. After 50 years of such difference, the idealogy is too different for a Taiwanese to even carry a conversation with a Chinese.

    After I moved to the US, I started to hang out with Chinese, and my viewpoint changed. Chinese have things that Taiwanese would love to have - resources. This is the same reason that Japanese islanders invaded China during World War II. Chinese also need Taiwanese for things that Taiwanese are very good at, such as human capital- Taiwanese are highly educated, with zero illiteracy. Unfortunately the political situation in China makes it impossible for ANY country to coorporate with China.

    For the past 50 years, Taiwanese govn't has always claimed that Taiwan wants to be back as China--peacefully, and after Chinese start to develop some democracy. But the wait is too long; Chinese govn't seems hopeless. Not much progress is made during the past 50 years and we don't think we will see much progress in the next 50. (Which is the truth that my Red Chinese friend despise.)

    One thing is clear: the day Taiwanese declare independence will be the day Chinese declares war. Some Taiwanese wants to fight, but I don't. Me and my families would prefer to enjoy good economy and peace.

  • Perhaps, but it ismostly a Republican Congress which have passed the laws that made this possible. With the loss of the Presidential line-item veto, the White House has less control over national policy than before.

  • "The more Taiwan relies on the US for defence, the less willing they will be to complain about the US's protectionist actions that favour its domestic chip manufacturing business."

    I believe these ideas are the issues that fuel the Tiawanese nationalists. Because of their current situation, they need to play the damsel in distress for protection. If Tiawan was legitimately recognized as an independent sovereign state, it can then receive diplomatic recognition in international organizations.

    In my opinion, having some legitimate global representation should be the primary goal (above a formal separation from the mainland). The problem of course is that any attempt at the former causes China to bitch about the latter.

    As it stands, the only channel through which Tiawan can be heard is through it's corporate/economic avenues; and as Jon Perterson alludes to, these veins can be easily pinched as well.

    *I apologize for any hallucinations resulting from my mixed metaphors*

  • Confrontations between China and Taiwan (Score:3)

    by lohen ( 122373 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2000 @03:15AM (#1312614) Homepage
    I take the politically incorrect view that Taiwan and China are two seperate countries. Taiwan has never been ruled by China's communist government, nor China by Taiwan's current administration (who are very different, thankfully, to the Kuomintang who originally set up shop there). Therefore the rest is merely hot air. There is no state of war between China and Taiwan, despite much rattling of sabres, nor any justification for a war beginning - it would cost China a lot more, not only in terms of its international standing, than it would be worth to invade. Thankfully. Therefore China's objections to the arms imports are meaningless, because they do not practically disadvantage China as a nation in any way whatsoever. And if China wants to join the WTO, it had better not object too strenuously to what is in effect an exercise in free trade.

  • Strengthen ties with Taiwan? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Right now there is, quite frankly, nothing worse for the US government to be doing than to be strengthening military ties with Taiwan. You must remember that this is a rogue province masquerading as a state, run by a bunch of despotic capitalists escaping the Communist armies. With them, they took all of China's gold reserves and a significant portion of its historical relics. They were defending a merciless, corrupt, inhuman system, that has since been replaced by the modern efficieny of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong thought. Supporting this province only shows your wish to suppress the working class and grind them into the dirt like the landlords did before the Revolution in 1949.

    We can't be supporting a "state" that stands for what Taiwan stands for. We must break ties with them and reaffirm our support of the Beijing government in order to demonstrate our commitment to stamping out imperialism, ending exploitation of the poor, and bringing everyone closer to the workers' paradise.
  • So what you are saying is that we should break ties with a free state in order to endorse a government that would thing nothing of attacking a group of students with tanks.

    Communism doesn't work. It makes almost everyone poor. Few remember that it was Chairman Mao's great wisdom that caused the Chinese to starve in the mid-1900's.

    Go Taiwan.

  • Oh brother (Score:3)

    by MattXVI ( 82494 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2000 @03:29AM (#1312618) Homepage
    The vote in the House had nothing at all to do with semiconduuctor supplies. The US has been officially committed to the defense of Taiwan for several decades. For much of that time "Made in Taiwan" was a less than impressive distinction. (That's all changed now in the 80's and 90's with the economic boom.)

    The House vote just reiterated long-standing US policy that discourages China from invading Taiwan. This commitment has ideological, not economic roots. It has more to do with halting what once feared to be a militaristic expansion of Mao's Revolution off the continent. The vote has much more to do with continued Chinese military exercises, saber-rattling, and trash-talking directly across the sea from Taiwan.

  • Unfortunately, the Beijing government disagrees with you. I think Taipei does agree with you (it certainly agrees with you in the short term), but can't say so, for fear of aggravating the situation....

    I agree that China isn't about to invade Taiwwan anytime soon. But you must remember that "reunification" is not the subject of a straight-up cost / benefit analysis by the Beijing government: it's a matter of national pride. I think that China (or at least the government) feels like its place in the world is undeserved at the moment, in terms of being a poor, powerless (relative to population, history), divided nation. For most of it's history, China has been master of all it surveyed, the master and chief influence upon the lands surrounding it. (Ok, there was the occasional Mongolian invasion and civil war....) Now, however, it feels a little shortchanged (especially due to various happenings in the 19th century).

    China's objection to arms imports is not based on any practical disadvantage or harm that it does to the PRC, but rather on the fact that this shows that the US supports Taiwan's separatist leanings.

    Any nation gets a little irrational when it comes to matters of national pride, and when your nation's pride has been wounded as severely as China's has, don't expect completely reasonable behavior.
  • I take it you've never been to Taiwan, your studies of Chinese history were all printed in Beijing.....and you're an asshole.
  • Sadly, this is absolutely true. The KMT were evil totalitarian bastards and stayed that way right up to the 80s before bringing in democratic government. Coincidentally, this happened as the cold war waned and western countries started to realise that they might have been a little more critical about some of their cold war allies.

  • Thank you troll.

    Trollish as you are, you do bring up one point:

    Who gives a flying fuck about China's lost or wounded pride?

    The PRC does, and the US is trying its best to ensure that they don't make anybody give a flying fuck (or more) by doing anything ... untoward with regard to Taiwan.
  • intelligent comment, no really I am shocked, thanks for posting.

    As I seem to be saying alot recently, we (geeks) belong to a world culture that should position itself above petty xenophobia and racism.

    I know not the country of orgin of many /.ers but I do know crap from intelligent comments, moderaters need to stop wasting the gems they hold on trolls and reward intelligence, please moderate the RayChuang's post up if you have the chance, informative, intelligent and f**kin' incrediable.

    Sparkes


    *** www.linuxuk.co.uk relaunches 1 Mar 2000 ***
  • Politically incorrect??!?! I think in the UK your opinion is the common and the politically correct one. Taiwan good, China bad, basically.

    However, I am always a cynic when it comes to US foreign policy. I think the U.S. is as worried by Taiwans power in respect to chip manufacture as it is worried by China's power in respect to Taiwan.

    The more Taiwan relies on the US for defence, the less willing they will be to complain about the US's protectionist actions that favour its domestic chip manufacturing business.

    I'm not suggesting that the US is currently that protectionist WRT chip fabs - but given the way it behaves in other industries (agriculture being the big one of late), it's only a matter of time.

  • I don't have a link offhand, but National Public Radio (NPR) News reported last night that the bill that overwhemingly (the vote was something like 300+ to 70) passed in the House of Representatives (re: incresed military support of Taiwan) will almost certainly be thrown out when it reaches the Senate. Furthermore, certain Senators have indicated that they will advise the President to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk. From a purely political point of view the bill is more of a "slap in the face" to the PRC in retaliation for the recent events regarding the Los Alamos fiasco, than a real effort at assisting Taiwan. Furthermore, even if this was a "real" bill aimed at beefing up the Taiwanese military, you must realize that the PRC's air superiority over the Taiwan Strait is nearly 25 to 1 versus Taiwanese forces. PRC has manufacturing capabilities of their fighters and bombers, while Taiwan has a tiny fleet of outdated F5-E interceptors and a few slightly less outdated F-16's. Taiwan also does not have manufacturing material or capability. This is without mentioning ground forces, for which I don't remember the numbers offhand. So basically, unless you give Taiwan tactical nuclear weapons (bad idea for obvious reasons) or other weapons of mass destruction, there really isn't much you can do realistically to beef up the Taiwanese military. In a practical sense the Taiwanese military is used more for anti-smuggling operations and to protect fishermen near international water boundaries by Japan, the Phillipines, and the PRC.
  • Your post reminded me of how the US pretty much made GM and Ford its national champions. The extent of the favortism extended as far as how there was some rumor that some CIA agents were asked to commit espionage against the Japanese auto industry. Funny thing is that the spies refused to spy for companies. Of course, the US auto industry had to take a serious hit economically before they finally improved the quality of their cars (not to mention that one Asian (Chinese?) kid was killed/murdered because a bunch of idiots thought he was Japanese).
  • I see your point, and I'm worried that you might actually be right. National pride is a big force to be reckoned with in China today because so much of their media is stridently nationalist. However, the Chinese governement's policy currently seems to be to get the Taiwanese the 'soft' way, by offering them incentives to give themselves up and displaying an effective 'one country, two systems' policy in Hong Kong.

    National feeling is also strong in Taiwan however, (1 third of their adult population is in the military, at least as a reservist) and this policy could definitely only ever show results over a very long period of time, particularly when China continues to misbehave in Tibet.

    Perhaps Beijing will grow tired of waiting and attempt more direct measures. Personally I sincerely hope not, and believe that it is unlikely and growing less so with events such as the military agreements being considered by the US. Only time will tell.

  • Uhmmm, I did my graduate work on Chinese-American Relations (1942-1944) and my wife's uncle was executed during 228 (the KMT massacre in Taiwan) so I think, maybe, I *do* know what I'm talking about. In the mid-1980's, my mail was regularly opened by the Taiwan governemt.
    What seems to be ignored here is that things have CHANGED....people in Taiwan can vote for whoever they want. They have a REAL, HONEST TO GOD DEMOCRACY...anyway, as much as one exists on earth.
    BTW, while in college in the US in the early 1970's, I read "Formosa Betrayed", "The Stilwell Papers", "Stilwell, The American Experience in China", etc, etc, etc. Actually, I had NO problem getting information about the the KMT.

    "Time will tell, shit will smell and water seeks it's own level." - Capt. S.O. Teric
  • I can't believe anyone would buy that pinky tone. The government that REALLY supress the working class is the Communists govenment! Look at the average income of Taiwan and China. The two started out at the same poverty level. Taiwanese GDP grew at more than 10% while the communists were busy killing scholars and teachers.


    You gota be really stupid to believe about Taiwanese stole the gold. My grandfather didn't have time to get his suitcase before he ran away. 99% of the people are in bare hands when migrated to Taiwan 50 years ago. Back then, Taiwanese are in more desperate poverty than the Chinese. But nearly none of them are as poor as the average in China today! Coincidence?


    Bottom line: Give me ONE DAMN EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT and then you can talk about your stupid Marxist theory. Marxist economic model is proven to be wrong-- it's not a coincident that ALL communist govenment are in poverty.

  • The M-60 was designed alooooooooong time before Autocad.
  • I never registered but for the last few days the NYT site has been letting me in anyway. I dunno if it's a bug or a quiet change of policy-- I hope the latter.
  • they[Taiwan] took ... a significant portion of its historical relics.

    And what happened to all the cultural relics that the refugees who fled to Taiwan didn't manage to haul out of China (and there were a lot)?

    That vast majority of cultural relics left in China were destroyed in the cultural revolution.

    What the refugees took was their valuable private possesions and they did a service to history by protecting it.
  • We shall not encourage TIers (TI=Taiwan Independence movement, a fraction who wants Taiwan to break away from China) to drag Americans into a conflict. Americans shall know it is not a good deal to die for the interests of these who support Taiwan independence, which does not benefit America or the people of Taiwan in any way. Taiwan independence benefits a fraction who wants to come to power in Taiwan, but most people in Taiwan and America and the computer users around the world will all suffer from the consequence of a war (in different degrees).

    Taiwan's status is like South Korea vs. North Korea, except that Taiwan vs. mainland China is not evenly divided. Taiwan is not ruled by mainland China so the status quo is in the best interests of most people in the world. These who want to start a war and think "Americans shall come to our aid and fight and die for us" are irresponsible and shall be treated as liers.

  • Well I took one Chinese history class in the US, but I havn't finished any US history text... Do they advertise how they killed Native Americans 200 years ago?

    It isn't that important is it? Maybe it isn't so important as to feed the dumb flaminbait but i had to do it.

    • Perhaps, but it ismostly a Republican Congress which have passed the laws that made this possible.

    Really? That's fascinating. Now, which laws specifically have made this possible.

    What needs to happen is that there should be oversight by the FTC and the DOJ on the Mega-Mergers. If Clinton cared a bit, you'd hear him preaching from the Bully Pulpit about how Congress is allowing this to happen.

    There's even the amazing case of the Citibank/Traveler's Merger that was illegal at the time that it was started. They started doing business together while the Banking regulations CLEARLY forbade these sorts of conglomerations of banking and insurance services.

    The US Federal Reserve and the DOJ (both under the Executive Branch) gave them a waiver.

    Congress later approved a change in the Banking regulations that made this Merger legal, and Clinton signed it into law.

    • With the loss of the Presidential line-item veto, the White House has less control over national policy than before.

    Oh yes, that Presidential line-item veto that the Republican Congress voted into law in 1997 and the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in 1998?

    Give me a BREAK! Reagan was BEGGING for a line-item veto for YEARS to get the profligate spending of the Democratic Congress under rein (the real cause of the huge deficits for which Reagan is blamed, profligate spending, not tax cuts, tax revenue nearly doubled in the '80s). The Republicans in a major feat of bi-partisanship, you know that bi-partisanship that the press will tell you the Republicans NEVER display, approved a line-item veto for Clinton.

    So, today Clinton has pretty much exactly those powers that Reagan, the same powers he had in 1995, and 1996 and since 1998 and it's because of the loss of the line-item veto that the White House has less control over national policy than before? That line-item veto that was in place for about a YEAR!?

    That's an interesting read of history.

    Clinton preaches about every other potential danger to the people. How come he doesn't recommend new legislation or direct the DOJ to tie up these Mega-Mergers? Why? Because he's the biggest friend the big multinationals has ever had.

    Democrats are amazing. If it's the good economy, well that's ALL Clinton. If it's anything bad, it's the Republican Congress. And the press is complicit in the lies.

    Anybody hear about the 107 months of economic recovery? The longest good economy ever? Next month it will be 108 months, that's 9 YEARS of good economy. Clinton has been in for just over 8 YEARS.

    Remember 1992? The worst economy in 50 years that Clinton told us about and the Press never challenged him on? According to the news today, we were in a good, recovering economy for the last 10 months of the Bush Presidency. Where was the Press then?


    -Jordan Henderson

  • Well, those are all very good points. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't federal budgets a form of legislation? Don't they call them spending bills? Doesn't Congress (for instance the House Appropriations Commitee) have significant influence on the budget? Does the Republican Party have a controlling majority in most of these budget-related committees?

    Clinton's executive staff theoretically sets policy but Congress controls the purse strings that allows those policies to be implemented, or not.

    I must admit I can't back this up, but I seem to have heard as part of the whole DOJ/MS trial hoopla that the budget for the DOJ's Anti-trust department was stretched thin these days. Perhaps there's also a budget-caused staff shortage for the departments that should be overseeing CityBank style Mega-Mergers?

    Consider that it is a Republican Congress that passed the DMCA, and has consistently resisted election spending limits. They generally tend to be more receptive than the Democrats towards legislation that favours corporate lobby groups over individuals. Historically, laissez-faire capitalism has found more proponents in the Republican Party than with the Democrats.

    Look at how much flak is hitting the DOJ because of the MS lawsuit (and who it is coming from), even though they have a strong evidence trail of questionable business practices being supported by top-tier MS executives. I have a lot of respect for many Microsoft employees, but I have no respect for the shady business practices exposed by the DOJ during trial.

    If Clinton cared a bit, you'd hear him preaching from the Bully Pulpit about how Congress is allowing this to happen.

    Agreed. Perhaps he used to place (aborted) health care reforms or other issues higher in priority. I've gotten the impression that politics is a bit like a game, where you only have so many political points to spread around. If you try to spread them around too much, they're spread too thin and you don't get much done. I'm not supporting the tradeoffs they made, just acknowledging that they had to make some.

    Perhaps after knowledge of his pecadillos came out, Clinton thought it might be a good idea to lie low until the end of his term, rather than try to take on the House of Representatives when he had just handed them a dumptruck of mud to throw at him.

    Living in British Columbia, I certainly wish we had more fiscal responsibility in our government. It's too bad that it is hard to find a party that believes in fiscal responsibility as well as a good balance between the rights of individuals, corporate strength, and the collective good. Libertarians seem to have learned the lessons of the 20th Century well, but seem to want to repeat those of the 19th century instead.
  • That posting and a copy of Iris Chang's pack o' lies should earn you enough for a ticket back to your beloved China.

    What the heck does "modern efficiency of Marxism-Lenninism and Mao Zedong thought" mean anyway?

  • I said by the current administration, not by 'The Republic of China). This is a very different thing to what the KMT were when they held China (And for most of the time that they held Taiwan) because it is democratic, instead of autocratic.

  • Terminus == Taiwan (Score:3)

    by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2000 @03:43AM (#1312645)

    Asimov really had it all down, didn't he. Protecting yourself against your big neighbors by making them dependant on your technological exports is straight out The Foundation's traders period.

    OK, it's not all that novel an idea, but it struck me in this context for some reason.

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • Petty politics are dragging our world down, just look at the posts in the Chinese Space Story earlier today.

    lohen's comments are in the main correct and I have no objection to them, but I do take offence at the general downturn in comments on /. when foreign (to the US) matters are mentioned.

    The Geek Culture is international and the anon. trolls that will almost definatly flame this little post down, don't bother we don't read your posts and /.er mods will not even kick you down, we promote success, we will not reward ignorance!

    Sparkes.

    *** www.linuxuk.co.uk relaunches 1 Mar 2000 ***

  • ROTFL (Score:1)

    by vido ( 134448 )
    Good joke, but best of all is that is wasn't marked as "troll".

    --
    User had a thaught - death penalty

  • TSMC makes *all* the graphics chips for 3dfx and Nvidia. This company controls key component manufacturing for the whole PC industry.
  • Everything that led up to the situation between Taiwan and China is you described, more or less. But making decisions today based on how Taiwan was formed decades ago and ignoring what it is today is foolish. Granted, China is much more powerful today and is a force to be reckoned with. But just as the US had indirectly skirmished with the Soviet Union during the cold war era with countries like Afghanistan and the sort, the US will do the same with China vis-a-vis Taiwan. More importantly, Taiwan is an economic asset to the US and the world. China owes its current economic growth to Taiwan and Hong Kong. If we keep thinking of the country today in terms of the way it was formed, we would not be dealing with Germany, Italy, Japan or many of the other countries that we deal with today.
  • US protectionism will depend a lot on who is sitting in the White House. Obviously, a long-shot like Buchanan would fulfill your protectionist fears. But he has as much chance as Britney Spears of being inaugurated.

    But I'm genuinely curious, when has a policy of military protection or alliance ever caused a US ally to put up with US protectionism? No country I know of is afraid to criticize US trade policy when it's heavy-handed or unfair. Do you have an example in mind?

  • Speaking of using trade as a weapon, the PRC realizes this too, and has been strongly wooing Taiwan companies to relocate factories in mainland China -- with certain restrictions on where they can get their parts and supplies from.

    It makes sense for the PRC economically, but there's more. I can't give you any sources offhand, but there was a quote from some official that stated it was done in the hopes of "strengthening ties" with Taiwan. The ROC on Taiwan understood the intent and responded by placing restrictions on investments by Taiwanese firms on the Mainland. They're pretty capitalist, though, so they didn't ban it completely.
  • The Taiwanese Air Force has about 160 F-16's and around 50 Mirage 2000's. They also have Apache Attack helicopters and yes, some F-5's. Let's not forget their Pershing and Patriot missiles. The Taiwanese developed nuclear weapons at the Chung Shan Institute of Technology in the mid 1980's but had to close the program due to pressure from the US. Ground forces are probably around 500,000 (add the reserves and you've got alot of troops).
    One should remember that the US avoided an assault on Taiwan during WWII because of the difficulty an invasion would have faced (landing beaches are few and are poor at best....most of the island is VERY mountainous).

  • National Champions (Score:4)

    by Paul Johnson ( 33553 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2000 @03:56AM (#1312656) Homepage
    Notice the history of Taiwan Semiconductor. The Taiwan government decided that it ought to have a chip maker, and handed Chang $100M to make it happen. Since then the relationship has remained cosy.

    Its exactly this kind of crony capitalism that led to the crash of the Tiger Economies. In the UK we dropped the "national champion" approach to industrial policy when Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, and we are much better off as a result.

    The problem with national champions is that they know they are too politically important to be allowed to fail. As a result they don't worry about running up losses because they know the government will bail them out. Sure, they can sometimes be success stories, but frequently they become economic millstones. UK readers who are old enough may remember the old British Leyland car makers. They were the national champions of UK industry during the 60s and 70s. It didn't take the unions there long to cotton on: the government wouldn't close them down or insist on layoffs because of the bad publicity, and hence they could strike for higher pay, shorter hours, or whatever else they wanted with complete disregard for anything else. BL became a byword for industrial strife, and the cars they made were famously bad.

    Incidentally, while BL was destroyed by its unions, they are not the only thing that destroys national champions. The management can do just the same. Their primary cash flow comes from the government rather than their customers, and the government will still be there even if the customers go away. Hence their primary goal becomes pleasing the government rather than their customers. This problem is masked during the boom years because the company does not need to make unpopular layoffs, pay cuts or other measures. But when things turn down again, the management concentrate hard on extracting money from the government instead of becoming more competitive.

    Remember the film "The Italian Job", a gold heist in Italy where three BL Minis were used as getaway cars? The film studio approached BL and asked if they could have the Minis in exchange for the valuable publicity. The BL middle-management thought about this and then turned them down. The reason was basically ass-covering. Saying "no" was the safe option. Saying "yes" could lead to Questions In Parliment about taxpayers money being wasted giving away cars to film companies. The extra sales that would result from people seeing the Mini as the perfect city car were irrelevant in this calculation.

    Sooner or later, Taiwan Semiconductor is going to go the same way as British Leyland.

    Paul.

  • I'm unable to figure out how this answers my question. In your example, Taiwan, a close US ally, depends on the US for military protection. Yet they weren't afraid to criticize and file complaints against the US and its companies for unfair trade practices. You seem to be demonstrating my point.
  • What are you talking about? I don't like Buchanan (he's too left-wing) but he is doen't speak in obscenities. And he may be wrong about the chopsticks (assuming he really complained about that) but he's accurate when he points at huge trade imbalances the US has with some countries. And yes, several of those countries are on the Pacific Rim. You don't have to be a "fire-eater" like Buchanan or a "poorly-educated American" to know that Japan, and to a lesser extent, China, are very tough about accepting imports.
  • I'm not saying they're pussies, I'm just stating the unavoidable fact that in terms of logistics, it's very difficult to keep Taiwan on par with the PRC with regards to military hardware. the Fujian military district alone has 25-fold air superiority over the Taiwan Strait. Don't forget that for every MiG the ROCAF shoots down 2 can replace it immediately; every F-16 the PRCAF shoots down is a lost plane. You need an insane kill ratio to defend against any kind of sustained attack, that kind of kill ratio is not going to be obtained by hardware like F-16's and Dassault Mirages.

    Don't forget also that the PRC has a large navy as well, they could just as easily seal off Taiwan's ports.

    Don't get me wrong, I am pro-Taiwan (from Taiwan, in fact). I just don't see the point in beefing up the military when it's painfully obvious we are hopelessly outnumbered.

  • Yes, and the US makes the M-60 tanks and F-16 fighters Taiwan uses for it's defence. Try and see how far you get throwing PCs at the Red Chinese Peoples Liberation Army.
  • Your more than likely going to get Flambe'ed for the post, but I've got to admit, you comments are right on. Time will tell.

    Never knock on Death's door:

  • Re:National Champions (slight difference) (Score:3)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2000 @04:26AM (#1312671) Homepage Journal
    Taiwan has never been as bad as the rest of the "Tigers" when it comes to cronyism. Granted, they've been under single-party control since the Nationalists escaped there, but a key differentiating factor in the "crony capitalism" economies is that ownership is concentrated in the hands of the families and friends of the ruling family. Though Taiwan is controlled by a single party, it's not the one-family (like for instance, Indonesia's Suhartos) type of party that is so corruptible. For better or for worse, free-market capitalism is the standard in Taiwan, and the government invests in industries instead of controlling them.

    The big difference in Taiwan is that government approaches ownership from a strategic viewpoint, and they aren't investing so much to get family members rich as they are to try and jump-start industries. In Indonesia, Suharto would have pumped $100 million into a chip company and put his nephew in charge. In Taiwan, Morris Chang was able to get the government to invest $100 million in exchange for an ownership stake with the purpose of jump-starting a semicinductor industry. By just about any measure, the effort was a spectacular free-market success. The difference is that in a cronyist system, Chang would have not been concerned with profits - he'd be skimming off the top and not worrying about the details. The Taiwanese semiconductor giants are making profits in a difficult sector of the market - and that's the biggest difference between what happens when government invests in free-market companies versus what happens when government actually owns the company. When the government owns the company, you get Indonesia, Thailand, and the British Leylands of the business world. I'd take the Taiwan approach any day in comparison.

    - -Josh Turiel

Slashdot Top Deals

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell

Close