Global studies on development administration show that on the road to modernization many countries go through a period characterized by serious political corruption and abuses. These include the stealing of international relief and development aid, as well as national and administrative resources.
Studies dealing with national transformations also reveal that a country transitioning from an authoritarian regime into a democratic one is almost always threatened by groups with vested interests, as well as questionable and complex relationships between political parties and economic as well as political interest groups.
Furthermore, international literature on globalization and global governance show that because of the rise of the new division of labor in the international community and new models of governance, the political and economic elite enjoy much greater "mobility" and "penetrability," allowing them to move around and make use of more resources than ordinary people. This has made quality governance more difficult to achieve, requiring the deployment of more resources and sophisticated legal mechanisms to maintain government integrity. Emotional power struggles and sensational political discourse are just cheap attempts to achieve government integrity at a low cost.
In the quest for democratic progress and government integrity, one must avoid the following traps.
First, taking efficiency as an absolute value, and anti-corruption as a moral value. Efficiency is very important in the value system of democracy, but it is not an absolute value. We cannot directly equate inefficiency with corruption. After all, the government has greater values to fulfill which may be in conflict with efficiency. As for anti-corruption, it should not be limited to calls for higher moral standards, there must also be room to review the mission of parties and political groups and their actions in pushing for sunshine bills.
Second, treating media reports and commentaries as legal rulings. Broadcast technology has given media reporting significant power, mobility and penetrability. However, some commentaries are designed to promote a specific agenda and inflated to the point that viewers might mistake them for judicial verdicts. The effect of these rapid and inflated commentaries is anti-democratic and runs counter to professional responsibility.
Thirdly, professional ethics in postmodern societies contrast with civic and public values. Postmodern societies are diverse and disconnected, emphasizing individual autonomy. They are highly mobile societies that are prone to conflict. With the clash of professional ethics from different fields, one should not overlook the public and society's needs and interests.
Fourth, the erosion of the principles of the separation of government powers and checks and balances. In the quest for government integrity, we must not depart from democratic constitutional government -- the separation of powers, checks and balances and the democratic rule of law. Observing the law and fostering a sense of responsibility are basic to the pursuit of clean government.
The key to establishing an honest government is to provide a normative democratic discourse to build a public consensus on anti-corruption. It also requires us to establish the rule of law as the basis for fighting graft. This is the only way we can avoid creating more public problems and social disorder.
Wu Eing-ming is a professor in the Department of Political Economy at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Marc Langer
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