Some people have said the pan-green camp as a whole should take responsibility for the financial irregularities of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his family, while former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator Lee Wen-chung (李文忠) has applied the same logic to the DPP leadership and demanded that they prove their innocence.
However, both the pan-green camp and Chen are on the same side, and both should have been monitored: Who has ever heard of a democratic system that would trust the governing party to monitor itself? It is the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — which should have monitored government spending — that are the real hypocrites and guilty of a cover-up.
Recent history has shown that many pro-independence politicians who have gained access to power have become corrupt. Corruption among pro-independence politicians is not only a moral issue, but also a psychological one.
First, they are essentially stealing from the national treasury of the Republic of China, which does not cause any moral conflict in their minds. In addition, corruption reflects feelings of oppression suffered under the KMT. It represents a way to ease frustration caused from seeing Taiwan’s restricted legal independence. The temptation of corruption is thus understandable.
It must be realized that any corruption among pro-independence politicians was learned from the KMT. During its decades in power, the KMT acted with arrogance and with little regard for the legal system. When former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) came into power, he brought the KMT’s corruption out into the open for all to see. This won the respect and admiration of pro-independence supporters, who helped Lee dismantle the old KMT guard.
The DPP at least attempted to monitor the KMT during its time as the opposition. The KMT, on the other hand, was the majority party during its eight years in opposition. It should probably have been allowed to form the Cabinet, but couldn’t overcome Chen’s legally grounded will, and gave up on the idea.
But even so, it should have fulfilled the role of an opposition party and monitored the government. The party was divided on the issue and eventually did not make any attempt to monitor the government. Some if its members were unwilling to let the DPP know where they stood. Others nurtured hopes of being tapped by the new government and others still worried that they would be accused of wanting to reinstate the “alien regime.”
In the absence of the KMT, individuals took on the monitoring task — some of them former KMT members, some former DPP members. Calls for further oversight were heard, but the KMT, surprisingly, refused to respond.
In response to calls from the public, the party’s chairman said the government should monitor itself in response and that it should not rely on the opposition party.
Internally, the KMT said it did what it did to win back power, and that they would deal with the issue later. In other words, the DPP may have been corrupt, but the KMT, afraid of alienating swing voters, decided to turn a blind eye.
If we want to talk about covering this mess up, we cannot put the blame solely on the DPP and pro-independence politicians alone. They were already suspected of corruption and were psychologically prepared for it.
The main effect of the delayed response in blaming the DPP is intended to divert attention from the KMT’s hypocrisy and complicity in the cover up.
Shih Chih-yu is a political science professor at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON AND PERRY SVENSSON
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations