This government is fond of quoting the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). The question is whether it is misrepresenting PERC’s research.
Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓), in his response to a Nov. 14 open letter from academics and other concerned voices abroad, sought to deflect allegations of political meddling in the trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) by citing PERC (“GIO response to Nov. 13 open letter,” Dec. 18, page 8).
Su’s response rebuts various concerns about the state of democracy in Taiwan by citing reports from organizations abroad. Two of these are Freedom House and Transparency International. The third section is subheaded “Political and Economic Risk Consultancy: Taiwan’s judicial system fair, independent.”
PERC’s reports are only available by paid subscription, so the question is whether the Government Information Office is hoping no one will bother to expend resources to check what PERC is actually saying.
In April, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) put on a bit of a show and surprised reporters by presiding over a press conference to say that he was disturbed by a PERC report and was launching a three-month judicial and governmental review on corruption.
“Taiwan’s degree of corruption was unexpectedly worse than that of mainland China,” Ma cited the report as showing, adding that Taiwan’s democratic principles and values had been “tarnished.” He further said this catastrophe was mostly the result of corruption under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration.
Ma even asked the premier to launch an anti-graft commission and the Ministry of Justice immediately joined the crusade.
No one would argue that graft is not a serious problem in Taiwan, but the sincerity of Ma’s campaign was questionable, particularly considering his focus on the DPP and considering that he misinterpreted the PERC report that had so “distressed” him.
The PERC report did not in fact conclude that corruption was worse in Taiwan than China, nor was it a study focused on corruption in the Chen administration. It focused on perceptions (among businesspeople) of corruption in both the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) (“Ma interpreted corruption report incorrectly: author,” April 11, page 1).
An embarrassing mistake, to say the least.
Now PERC makes another appearance, this time in Su’s article.
“According to the latest Asian Intelligence report issued on Nov. 4 by the widely respected Hong Kong firm Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Ltd, it is generally believed that in the Chen Shui-bian case, the court proceedings have been transparent, the evidence against him is convincing and the judiciary has operated independently — not as a political tool of the Kuomintang (KMT),” Su wrote.
“This illustrates the fairness and independence of our judicial system as appraised by international investigative organizations,” he wrote.
What is Su implying with the phrase “it is generally believed?” Believed by whom — the public or judicial observers and other experts abroad? He is conveniently ambiguous.
The “report” Su is referring to is a fortnightly newsletter that summarizes developments in Asian business and politics. The Nov. 4 issue is titled “Dangers involved with ignoring the obvious.”
The four paragraphs devoted to Taiwan are not a study of Taiwan’s judiciary, nor is it logical to conclude that they “illustrate the fairness and independence of our judicial system as appraised by international investigative organizations.”
The newsletter says the Chen trial was “widely seen as being transparent,” the evidence was “fairly compelling” and the courts “came off as independent.” That comprises two sentences of the four paragraphs.
The rest of the passage discusses grave problems with corruption in both the DPP and the KMT and public skepticism over the parties’ efforts to tackle graft.
It refers to Ma’s efforts as KMT chairman to rehold the scandal-plagued KMT Central Standing Committee election as an “empty gesture” unlikely to change public opinion.
Ma has promised to offload the KMT’s business interests, it says, “but these promises have dragged on for so many years ... that the KMT is still seen by many as much for its business clout as for its political influence.”
“Big incidents” of corruption within the KMT “continue to be covered up” and those responsible “are rarely held accountable,” it says.
I wonder if Su would be willing to describe these comments as reflective of the appraisals of international investigative organizations. Probably not.
Next time this government cites PERC, take its claims with a grain of salt.
Celia Llopis-Jepsen is an editor at the Taipei Times.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS