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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS