President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Tuesday called for the establishment of an anti-corruption commission. Such a move was warranted, he said, to combat graft and meet public demands for clean government. He added that success depended on the resolve of government leaders, and therein lies the problem.
Ma is the head of a government, as well as a political party, that has long fought legislative efforts to battle corruption and enact necessary sunshine laws. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — both in and out of power — has persistently dragged its feet on judicial reform. In addition, Ma wants the commission to be a unit of the Ministry of Justice, instead of being independent.
His proposal appears to be mostly smoke and mirrors, especially since he and Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) appear to differ on the agency’s mission. Ma’s inability to enact internal reforms in the KMT does not inspire much confidence either.
However, as the establishment of such an agency will require the approval of both the Executive Yuan and the legislature, there is plenty of time to work out the details. If Ma and the Cabinet are serious about rooting out corruption, they should take the time to do it right. This must involve brainstorming with legal experts and the opposition. The downside for the administration, of course, is that it would receive advice that it would not like.
In the interests of being helpful, there are three sources we suggest that Ma and his planners consult: the 2004 World Bank report Anti-Corruption Commissions, Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?; the recommendations of the 1999 National Conference on Judicial Reform; and members of the Judicial Reform Foundation — the latter two would be especially useful as Ma’s anti-corruption stance stems from the recent scandal engulfing the judiciary.
John Heilbrunn, author of the bank report, said anti-corruption agencies have often failed to reduce corruption because they are aimed more at placating calls for reform than taking real action and because political leaders are averse to enacting reforms that could hurt cronies or constituents who benefit from corruption. These agencies are often little more than paper tigers because, he said, they lack the remit, budget or staff to be truly effective and serve largely to divert attention from other reforms, or worse, they become tools “to repress political rivals … or previous governments become targets of investigation.”
Heilbrunn said there are four key factors to ensuring the effectiveness of an anti-corruption agency: giving it the legal tools to pursue corrupt officials and the mandate to enforce such laws; independence from political leadership; a clear reporting hierarchy to ensure transparency; and an oversight committee to both control potential excesses, such as the persecution of political opponents and to limit political interference in agency operations.
As for fixing the judiciary, some of the recommendations of the July 1999 conference have been implemented, such as the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) in 2003, which incorporated the presumption of innocence into the law and provided for legal representation in major cases. However, many of its suggestions have languished in legislative limbo or were never initiated in the first place. It is time they were reconsidered.
The Judicial Reform Foundation has worked since 1997 to improve the nation’s judiciary and its legal education system. It has pushed for laws to better monitor judges and remove bad ones, a necessary measure because judges have tenure after serving a two-year internship. Once again, it is time the foundation’s recommendations were put into effect.
As Ma said, we cannot rely upon an anti-corruption commission to fix all the problems, because tackling corruption requires the resolve of government leaders. The nation is waiting to see just how much resolve Ma and the KMT have.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS