Commentators often like to compare things here with the situation in "advanced" countries around the world when trying to make a point about how "backward" a certain practice is or how "immature" democratic institutions are.
But a couple of events that occurred in the UK last week demonstrate that we have less to worry about than most people think.
Last Thursday was an embarrassing day for the British government. First, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general for England and Wales, announced a decision to end an investigation by the British police's Serious Fraud Office into alleged bribes paid to Saudi officials as part of an arms deal in the 1980s.
The British press said that the decision to halt the proceedings was in response to economic threats from the Saudi regime, as investigators were close to discovering the identities of those who received the kickbacks. The reason given by Goldsmith, however, was that the investigation was dropped because of "national security" interests, with the shocking admission that "the wider public interest" outweighed "the need to maintain the rule of law."
The British government could still find itself in hot water, however, as it is a signatory to the 1999 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Anti-Bribery Convention, which states that probes should not be "influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved."
The decision brought comparisons to a "banana republic" in the British press.
On the same day, it was revealed that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been questioned by police investigating allegations of "cash for peerages." Officers were gathering evidence as part of a probe into whether the Labour Party had broken existing laws in accepting cash loans from several businessmen in exchange for titles and places in parliament's upper house.
Although he is the leader of the Labour Party, Blair was not cautioned before the interview, a key fact as it means the police have no reason to believe any charges will be brought against him in future.
These events are worth mentioning as they bear a striking similarity to two ongoing issues in Taiwan, namely the investigation into bribes paid during the purchase of six Lafayette-class frigates in the 1990s and the indictment of first lady Wu Shu-jen (
The bid to find out the truth about the huge kickbacks given as part of the Lafayette deal began in 2001, but efforts in France to uncover evidence have stalled because of the French government's refusal to give magistrates access to top-secret defense files that identify the recipients.
Although motivated partly by partisan interests, the Democratic Progressive Party's efforts to investigate this corrupt deal must be commended; it is a shame that prosecutors have been thwarted in their efforts by foreign governments, in much the same way as the British police have been.
The "state affairs fund" probe, on the other hand, demonstrates just how far Taiwan has come in a short time. There is an element of partisanship involved in the Wu case, but hopefully it will set a precedent for future leaders.
The fact that the first lady and other high-level officials are on trial for abusing their position and that the president has also been implicated goes to show that very few, if any, are above the law. Unfortunately, from what has transpired in Britain over the last week, it seems that the same cannot be said of some so-called "advanced" states.
On this score, Taiwan deserves some praise.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs