Former Judicial Yuan president Lai In-jaw (賴英照) is widely considered to be knowledgeable and honest. Many were surprised when he tendered his resignation in the wake of allegations of corruption among Taiwan High Court judges, a decision that met with much public displeasure.
Reflecting this surprise, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) said: “If the Judicial Yuan president had to resign to take responsibility for [alleged] corruption among his subordinates, then why didn’t National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) have to resign for police corruption [in Taichung City]?”
It’s a little bit like the ancient Chinese law that punished the family and friends of an offender, according to which both Premier Wu Dun-yih (吳敦義) and Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), as Wang’s immediate supervisors, should also be held responsible.
Lo also said: “Discipline within Taiwan’s military has long been chaotic, but no national defense minister has resigned to take responsibility. As for the alleged corruption, why didn’t the Control Yuan, which is charged with monitoring the government, see the problem earlier? Doesn’t that mean Control Yuan President Wang Chien-shien (王建煊) should resign? Surely the same standard should apply to all officials, regardless of political affiliation.”
However, Lo appears to have conveniently overlooked other recent scandals, such as why Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國), wasn’t punished for the recent scandals at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.
Another issue is Miaoli County Government’s controversial expropriation of farmland in Dapu Borough (大埔), Jhunan Township (竹南), where Jiang, Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Wu-hsiung (陳武雄) and other officials have said only that they will act in accordance with the law. In contrast, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Wu seem to only be concerned by the political ramifications, demanding the KMT County Commissioner, Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻), listen more to the protesters.
In theory, the culture of the judicial system differs from that of other governmental heirarchies because the Judicial Yuan president has no authority to investigate the wrongdoings of judges. Meanwhile, judges issue their verdicts independently and without interference and most demonstrate mutual respect by not meddling in each others cases.
This has been the practice for years. Whenever alleged corruption or misconduct occurs within the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice or a special investigation team under the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office handles the case.
In recent years, scandals involving prosecutors have been frequent. Take the recent case for example. Prosecutor Chiu Mao-jung (邱茂榮), along with three judges, have been detained on suspicion of corruption. However, Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) has not taken any responsibility. Ma and Wu simply expressed their deep disappointment and reaffirmed their determination to punish those involved, announcing the establishment of an anti-corruption agency under the Ministry of Justice. Ma has also pledged to build a clean and capable government, yet today his administration is neither.
Over the last two years there has been a palpable sense that the Ma administration is coming apart at the seams and its pursuit of justice has failed in the face of a seemingly endless list of corruption cases. Ma and other key officials have not, however, taken responsibility or apologized for this. Instead, they have passed the buck telling others to step down and making every effort to redirect attention. Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) corruption scandals, for example, have been continually used as something to hide behind.
Raela Tosh, daughter of World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer, who visited Taiwan earlier this month, said that, “In an authoritarian country, you need to convince the government, but in a free country, it’s more important to convince the people.”
What I would like to know is how Ma intends to convince the people of Taiwan.
Lu I-ming is former publisher and president of Taiwan’s Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS