The phenomena of vote-buying in connection with the Kaohsiung City Council speaker election has gone through several dramatic twists and turns. Riddled by concerns over their "criminal status," many of the bribed councilors have taken the initiative to turn themselves in and become witnesses for the prosecution, thus shedding some light on the whole affair.
It looks as if the biggest loser will be the speaker-elect Chu An-hsiung (
The problem is that most of them will have been expelled even as they carry out the duties of their position, so independents will likely become the largest group in the council, and the effects of such a situation are a cause for serious concern.
Regardless as to whether the involved councilors have come out to act as accomplices-turned-witnesses, they cannot deny having been involved in corruption. This group of councilors includes members from the KMT, the DPP and the PFP -- and they will hold a majority in the council. Therefore, if they are inducted, the Kaohsiung City Council will be "tainted." How could such a council be capable of shouldering the sacred duty of monitoring policy implementation?
Can Kaohsiung citizens rely on councilors that they know are flawed, hoping they will correct their mistakes without falling back into their old behavior?
City councilors are charged with representing residents during interpellation sessions with the city government and reviewing various budget items. Can residents trust that these independents -- who are not bound to party discipline and whose political career is doomed -- take this opportunity to gain as much profit as they possibly can?
The people of Taiwan were expecting that strict enforcement would have swept away "black gold" prior to these elections and that an honest and pure atmosphere would have been brought to local elections. Prosecutors probably have adopted a strategy of being selective in order to avoid consequences that are more severe than Kaohsiung's democracy can withstand.
We may soon see various sensational conspiracy theories cropping up. This conjecture would deplete public trust to the extent that citizens will question prosecutorial determination to punish corruption. It may also result in the dissipation of hard-won public morale and instead create the negative impression that the government is not following through.
This is also the reason why the government and political parties must hurry to draft a concrete plan evaluating possible side effects, as things start to unfold. They can not wait until after the fact and let things deteriorate without any damage control.
Political parties should abandon the blue-green myth and join hands to diagnose the flaws in Taiwan's local political structure. They should pass "sunshine" legislation to thoroughly eliminate the sources of "black gold" horse-trading.
Only when the dark channels of conflicting interests are examined in broad daylight, one by one, can elected officials at different levels fulfill their mandate instead of attempting to exchange their power for money and sullying the essence of democracy.
In the final analysis, the awakening of Taiwan's electorate is an indispensable step in the development toward a sound democratic system. If, apart from expelling the councilors involved in this case, political parties are unable to propose reforms to deal with the situation, it will really become necessary for the Kaohsiung City electorate to consider using their right to recall elected officials in an attempt at expressing the public's contempt for greedy councilors.
If not, it would seem voters are willing to accept corrupt councilors and their continued "service" to Kaohsiung.
Although many Taiwan voters, overly indulgent as they are, don't think it very strange to exchange money for votes, the flip-side of under-the-table politicking is that the quality of public construction is sold and public resources go to waste. In the end, each individual resident will lose, and it may even drag the whole country down with it.
If appropriately handled, Taiwan's local politics -- which used to harbor the worst dregs of society -- may be given a new lease on life. But if blues and greens stick to their own ideas and politicians continue their shortsighted competition, politics will still remain a field for lousy unprincipled work and history books will say that the vote-buying in the Kaohsiung City Council speaker election was a travesty. That "tainted witnesses" who were tolerated and a "black gold" structure was upheld will go down in history. Long live "black gold."
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University and the chairman of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers