Q: To bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion, we have not only laid out a program of action. It is also said that the American side has taken it upon themselves to map out a plan for us. I would like to ask the minister, what is the difference between these two plans?

A: The biggest difference is that everything in the "American version" has been stipulated very concretely, not only listing all types of measures in detail, but also including very strict demands in terms of timetables and progress. It is precisely the American way of handling problems--it sees the problem too simply.

A more flexible Chinese version

I don't think this type of approach entirely suits us. We are absolutely sincere about the protection of intellectual property rights, but you can't make demands the way the U.S. has: Do this today, pass that law tomorrow, implement it the next day, and arrest and sentence violators the day after. Our program is more a statement of principles, more general and long-term. We also have a timetable, but it is more flexible. This is basically doing things according to one's own practical environment. It's too bad that the American side has little understanding of this point.

Q: Since this gap persists, how much ability does Director General Hsu of the Board of Foreign Trade have on this trip to the U.S. to resolve the 301 crisis in negotiations?

A: This depends on whether the American side is willing to resolve the problem properly! If the American side understands that we are quite sincere, and that the problem wasn't created overnight and cannot be resolved overnight--then things will be easier to handle. If everyone tries, it will be easy to achieve a consensus. But if the American side is not willing to consider our practical difficulties, and want everything to be their way, then things will be quite difficult.

Nevertheless, on the basis of our decade-long experience of trade negotiations with the Americans, I don't think things will get to that point.

Turning crisis into opportunity

Q: Are our institutions acting a bit too slowly? For example, the revisions to the copyright law have been on the table in the Legislative Yuan for a year and a half, and the Judicial Yuan has not yet set up specialized courts for intellectual property rights protection. On this occasion some commentators believe that the government is trying to use 301 to force domestic institutions to get in step. Do you agree with this view?

A: It is a fact that the 301 crisis can force everyone in and out of government and at all levels of society to take this issue more seriously. But to say we've induced the American side to employ 30l--there is absolutely no such situation. The government would never be so stupid, and anyway getting on the list will hurt our image to some degree. I hope that everyone in the government and the private sector will place great emphasis on this plan and dispel the crisis.

Why? Because whether or not there is retaliation under 301, the protection of intellectual property rights is something we should do anyway. This will have a critical impact on the future transformation and upgrading of the industrial structure, and is vitally important for us.

So you can say that at its origin 301 is a crisis, but if we can turn the crisis into opportunity, and turn pressure into a helpful force, then we can leap beyond this point and not just be swept under the shadow of 301.

"Political coercion" by advanced countries?

Q: Now it seems clear that most people agree with this. For example many industries have launched self-restraint movements. But looking at the reaction of legislators in the Legislative Yuan, it seems they are saying that the Americans are displacing the pressure of the forthcoming election onto Taiwan. . . .

A: Some legislators of course don't approve of the measures we are taking, doing them under the pressure of U.S. 301. As the highest elected officials of a sovereign nation, it's natural they should have this kind of sentiment.

But I want to emphasize that we aren't doing this just because we are under pressure. Our economic future is in technology; if you don't protect intellectual property rights, Taiwan's economy will have no future to speak of. If you look at the problem from this angle, we are merely going about things the right way, and there's no reason to complain.

Q: The reaction of the legislators reminds me of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir. At the recent world summit in Kuala Lumpur, he severely criticized the global environmental policies of the advanced nations, saying they are a political tool to repress developing countries. You have also said that Chinese and American culture and practical environments are different, and that American standards are not necessarily suitable for Taiwan. Are there similarities here?

From gains and losses to right and wrong

A: American demands on us simply arise from their interests. Certainly, if these also conform to our interests, it will be no problem for us to go and do them. But we have our own pace, methods and progression, which are all different from the American requests. We hope to make this clear so they can understand.

What the Malaysian prime minister said reflects a feeling of resentment on the part of developing nations toward developed nations. The environmental issue is very important, as everyone knows. It's only that some people feel that we should move hastily and can no longer wait, and they want to storm right through. But others say that this problem was not created overnight, and we must accumulate experience and improve step by step. This is like the advanced countries demanding immediate action, while the developing countries say: We haven't even begun to make money, what ability do we have to do anything? But if you don't act there will be trade sanctions, and then won't we always be poor? Where's the fairness in this? There are really many different views on this issue.

Q: It is hard to escape the conclusion that in the past the government's attitude toward the protection of foreign intellectual property rights has been "whether or not this is beneficial for us or harmful for us." But this time Premier Hau Peitsun clearly stated that infringement of intellectual property rights is a kind of theft--the perspective is already shifting from "gain or loss" to "right and wrong." Will this have a different impact on how we handle intellectual property rights in the future?

Plagiarism doesn't mean respect

A: No, no. Premier Hau has a relatively progressive, farsighted view. Because in the past the viewpoint was that to infringe on others' property had to be concrete or manifest; it would only be theft when someone took money out of your pocket. Premier Hau's meaning is that intellectual property is intangible, but should be seen exactly the same way. If it is used without proper permission, without paying the necessary returns, then that is criminal behavior. Today we should all have this perspective, not like in the past when we felt that plagiarizing from your article was a sign of respect. This is not permissible. We must quickly establish the concept of intangible property.

Q: Through this incident, it seems that relevant industries in Taiwan are already making adjustments. Do you think they are enough? Does the minister have any advice or suggestions for everyone?

A: Although this incident of making the 301 list has had some impact on our country, the reaction of entrepreneurs has, on the contrary, been satisfying. In the past there was inadequate awareness. Now they are more willing to accommodate the relevant government measures. For example, the computer industry has agreed to a plan to spot check computer products prior to export, in order to evade American pressure for 100% inspection.

Don't make this a passing fad

What I hope is that entrepreneurs will not treat this as a passing fad or still take their chances. The multi-ministerial task force the Executive Yuan has set up for the enforcement of intellectual property rights will be a long-term body. We meet once every two months, take stock periodically and hold provisional meetings whenever necessary. I hope we can do some long-term activities and do inspection work to get to the source of things in order to build an environment suitable for research and development.

I think we Chinese are really very smart. If we don't build a system today, everyone will only think of short-term gain and will be unwilling to do long term research and development work which shows no immediate returns. Today the government wants to eliminate this negative factor for R&D because only in this way will there be hope for our economic development and social progress.

[Picture Caption]

(photo by Vincent Chang)

The Nintendo company sued local operators for pirating TV game software, making for quite a dispute. (photo by Pu Hua-chih)

In order to prevent illegal pirating, many in the recording industry got together and went to the Legislative Yuan to petition. The leaders were mainly famous singers, attracting an unusual amount of attention. (photo by Diago Chiu)

The Nintendo company sued local operators for pirating TV game software, making for quite a dispute. （photo by Pu Hua-chih）

In order to prevent illegal pirating, many in the recording industry got together and went to the Legislative Yuan to petition. The leaders were mainly famous singers, attracting an unusual amount of attention. （photo by Diago Chiu）