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.
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