With charges of dirty tricks flying between the pan-green and pan-blue camps and allegations rolling out from business circles in the midst of the election campaign, the public has gradually been made aware of the relationship between politics and business. What they have seen might be just the tip of the iceberg.
Given today's campaign methods, an enormous amount of money must be spent on TV commercials, print propaganda mobilizing supporters to attend campaign rallies, broadcasting campaign activities and setting up campaign headquarters. The cost is probably much higher than each camp has admitted.
Recently exposed allegations and scandals involve hundreds of millions of NT dollars. Two scenarios are running at the same time now -- "business acquiring government" and "politics controlling business."
If this happened in the US, what would the result be? The answer is that it would not happen. This does not mean US politicians are not corrupt. It means the US' system has limited their freedom to misbehave.
US candidates must declare the political donations they have received. If they fail to do this, they are faced with lawsuits. Naturally those who break the law would have to retire from the political arena.
But in Taiwan, whether one breaks the law depends on one's own definition and whether one has to leave the political arena is one's own choice. Such a big gray area should make US politicians jealous in the extreme.
The US' Lobby Law stipulates that politicians must fill out forms after meetings with representatives of interest groups to record the time and place of the meeting and the issues discussed.
This is the only way to rein in corruption. But in Taiwan, business conglomerates have various channels through which they can meet with important government officials.
Former US vice president Al Gore was criticized for making calls from his White House office to raise funds. To be frank, the people of Taiwan are very envious of such a "scandal." Comparing that with the allegations of corruption in our presidential campaign, it is clear that, although our referendum laws are more "democratic" than those in the US, our democracy still has a long way to go.
Emile Sheng is an associate professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath