The allegations of money laundering that have surfaced over the last week against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) have led to a frenzied debate about what can be done to prevent dishonest politicians from profiting from positions of power.
As usual, the pro-unification media have done their best to paint Chen as guilty, acting as judge and jury with sensationalized reports of underground money transfers and overseas bank accounts. Prosecutors’ investigations are ongoing, however, and Chen has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. It could be a number of years before we know the result of any trial.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), embarrassed by the revelations about its former leader and party strongman, has proposed measures to strengthen the regulation of public functionaries’ assets.
The changes would make unexplained and exorbitant income punishable by fines or a prison sentence.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), meanwhile — perhaps emboldened by its overwhelming victories in this year’s legislative and presidential elections — seems to think that a party that controls billions of NT dollars in stolen assets is worthy of bearing the “anti-corruption” mantle.
After electoral gains won in part because of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) promises of clean government, the KMT sees Chen’s apparent downfall as an opportunity to strengthen its image as an organization staunchly opposed to corruption.
This, despite the fact that the KMT-dominated legislature failed to act on a proposal similar to that of the DPP during the last legislative session and has stalled a batch of promising “sunshine laws” for years.
One might be forgiven for having some faith in the shower of promises to clean up the system in the wake of the Chen scandal but for the complete lack of action that was displayed when a similar problem arose last year.
When Ma was indicted on embezzlement charges relating to his special mayoral allowance during his tenure as Taipei mayor there was a cacophony of calls to reform the fundamentally flawed special allowance system.
More than a year and lots of hot air later, absolutely nothing has been done.
There has been no reform, no amnesty for past offenders and no action taken, other than a host of prominent pan-green camp members and former government officials being indicted over alleged misuse of their funds.
Given the inaction on the special allowance issue, it is a safe bet that nothing will be done following this latest episode.
If Chen is eventually charged and convicted, it will be a decisive victory for the KMT in its decade-long struggle to get even with him. This would also do untold damage to the image of the pro-localization movement.
It will further tarnish the DPP’s once respectable image, and the stain will take years, if not decades, to clear.
And yet all the promises of reform and talk of clean government will amount to nothing if, as in the past, the concern for this issue evaporates once the initial furor has died down and its usefulness for political gain has been expended.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS