NSTC backs core tech list after ex-U.S. official voices concerns

Taipei, June 29 (CNA) The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) has said that its national core technology list prevents foreign actors from stealing trade secrets, after an ex-U.S. Department of Commerce official raised concerns over Taiwan's export controls.

Mi-yong Kim, former chair of the Operating Committee for Export Administration at the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), said at a forum on "techno-geopolitics" earlier this week that there was a "discrepancy in the verbiage" between Taiwan's Foreign Trade Act and its list of "national core key technologies" published last December.

Kim was referring to the fact that while the core technology list talks about protecting "key technologies," the Foreign Trade Act -- the law that implements the control and requires export permits from exporters -- only oversees the flow of strategic high-tech "commodities" without mentioning how the export of "technologies" is regulated.

The list of 22 protected technologies announced by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) last December spanned five sectors: defense, space, agriculture, semiconductors, and information security.

Regarding semiconductors, the controlled technologies are those more advanced than the mature 14-nanometer process and advanced IC packaging and testing technologies such as processes involving silicon photonics integration development and related specialty chemicals and raw materials and equipment, according to NSTC.

In response to a CNA request for comment, the NSTC said Friday that the list is to "strengthen the trade secrets of the national core technologies, preventing them from being disclosed illegally to foreign countries that could result in violations of national and industrial interests."

"It would be investigated by prosecutors if the said trade secrets are found to be illegally obtained by foreign entities," the council said.

The council stressed that the list is to "protect trade secrets by aggravating the punishment of the violations" and "does not affect enterprises' existing commercial activities and collaborations."

In other words, there is no pre-export review or implementation of control of the said technologies, as Kim argued.

"Export control is about obtaining government authentication before exporting," Kim said.

In Taiwan's case, however, while "technology to develop, produce, or use controlled commodities is on the [national core key technology] list of controlled items, Taiwan does not review such technology exports because the Foreign Trade Act references only controls on commodities," she explained.

Kim took the U.S. export control as an example to be followed, pointing out that in its export control list, the control list has ten broad categories, and each category is further subdivided into five product groups, of which "technology" is specifically singled out as a group.

Jeremy Chih-cheng Chang (張智程), director of the semiconductor industrial policy research unit of the national think tank Research Institute for Democracy, Society and Energy Technology, also discussed at the forum whether the country's regulatory system is sufficiently functioning for the protection of Taiwan's technologies.

In his report, Chang seconded Kim's view in noting that Taiwan's National Security Act, the foundational law for the core technology list, is not about export control but only aimed at "strengthening the legal actions against economic spies that infringe private enterprises' trade secrets."

"This is really different from how the U.S., Europe, and Japan have been making adjustments to their laws to build up their strength to oversee their core technologies, infrastructure, and supply chain after 2018 with an eye to economic security," Chang said in the report.

Konrad Kwang-Leei Young (楊光磊), a former Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) R&D director, told Kim at the forum that he believed the limited export control has benefited Taiwanese companies to a great extent, which is a reason why the government has been reluctant to make changes.

"If it were up to the companies, the U.S. wouldn't have had export control," Kim said.

While the government has to consider companies' benefits, "at the end of the day, the government's job is to take care of national security, not the companies' interests," she stressed.