President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday presided over a rare press conference on a single issue, as opposed to the usual scene in which a Presidential Office spokesman briefs the media.
By taking the podium himself at the Presidential Office’s press room, Ma wanted to send out the message that he took the subject — corruption — seriously, as well as to reinforce his image as a clean-cut politician with high moral standards.
Action speaks louder than words, however, and it was ironic to see Ma, with a solemn face, expressing regret over the nation’s deteriorating standing on corruption, saying the dismal performance was because of the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration and vowing to spare no effort in stamping out graft. This, despite Ma’s own party passing a watered-down version of an amendment to an anti-corruption law just a few days ago.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-controlled legislature passed an amendment to the Act on the Punishment of Corruption (貪污治罪條例) on Friday. It requires public functionaries found guilty of corruption to explain the source of their wealth if the value of their or their children’s assets increased in the three years following the crime and exceeded the total they declared under the Public Functionary Disclosure Act (公職人員財產申報法). Violators face jail terms of up to three years, or a fine of no more than the value of the assets of undeclared origin, or both, if they cannot account for the assets in their possession. Failure to explain the origin of the assets would lead to a presumption of corruption, under which the property could be seized or confiscated. The amended law will not be applied retroactively.
The KMT caucus praised the amendment as a “sunshine” measure, while the Presidential Office said it was a “milestone” in the fight against corruption.
Closer examination, however, reveals legislation that lacks any teeth when it comes to rooting out corruption. It is pointless to demand those convicted of corruption to account for their assets when they would have been automatically placed under judicial investigation anyway.
So if a corrupt public official is shrewd enough to avoid being prosecuted, what can the Act on the Punishment of Corruption do about it? The amendment only covers those convicted and their children who haven’t reached adulthood, so what happens if officials are sly enough to keep dirty money in the accounts of their grown-up children or other relatives?
And why the non-retroactivity clause? Is it the KMT’s way of covering up for those who may have been corrupt under its watch, but haven’t been caught?
Given the maximum three-year prison sentence, the amendment could be dismissed as an acceptable risk by corrupt officials.
If the Ma government is serious about stamping out corruption, it would choose to adopt a stricter version, such as the amendment proposed by the DPP caucus, which retroactively calls for all civil servants to declare their assets under the Public Functionary Disclosure Act and not just those found guilty of corruption.
Once campaigning starts in the run-up to the year-end elections, Ma and the KMT will likely sell the amendment as a “milestone” bill, when in fact it acts as a millstone around the neck of clean government.
In light of recent criticism of the judiciary, which has come under fire for prosecuting mostly pan-green officials for corruption, the KMT’s “sunshine” amendment is deeply disappointing.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS