After former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was found not guilty on Nov. 5 of charges of accepting bribes related to the second wave of financial reform, the issue of corruption has once again become a focus of attention.
Less than a week later, Chen was found guilty of bribery in a final verdict on the Longtan land acquisition case. Both cases show that Taiwan must deal decisively with corruption. While everyone has been focused on corruption involving the former first family, an important aspect is being overlooked: If businesses did not offer bribes, politicians would have one less place to look to for illegal profits.
Businesses play various roles in corruption. At times they may be the perpetrators of a crime as they bribe civil servants to further the company’s interests, encouraging civil servants to breach their duties to benefit business. For example, the political contributions that surfaced during the second wave of financial reform were given so that these companies would benefit from the influence of publicly-owned firms.
At times like this, businesses become accomplices in the broad sense of the term. Sometimes, however, they become the victims of corruption. There have, for example, been cases in which companies have had to give out “contributions” against their will after being blackmailed by corrupt politicians. Other companies operate on the fringes of the law, such as when a financial holding company allegedly gave a cash wedding gift of NT$6 million (US$195,900) to Chen’s son, Chen Chih-chung (陳致中).
Shareholders entrust managers to run their company in accordance with the law. Financial holding companies are not only responsible to their shareholders, they also control the savings of the public, which means they have a wide scope of responsibility. However, too little attention has been given to business corruption. Although government agencies have started to study business-related corruption over the last two years, we have yet to see any concrete legislation or integrated action.
If a company gives money to government agencies, it follows that they will not hesitate in taking money in private. A culture of corruption is not something that forms overnight. We should also think about who pays the bribes. Does the chairman or chief executive of the company cover the cost? If the company absorbs the cost, how is the expenditure accounted for? With bribes often reaching millions or billions of NT dollars, how could they not affect the finances of a business?
If the money does not show up in financial reports, we need to ask if these companies are falsifying their accounts. In such a case, shouldn’t the financial and accounting staff of the companies be held responsible? Haven’t the companies’ legal departments set up mechanisms for handling self-discipline and risk management?
When company officials bribe the government, they hurt the interests of their company and place it at risk. This is clearly a breach of trust.
To stem corruption, Taiwan should implement reforms immediately involving the following.
First, businesses should ask themselves three questions: Do we have any anti-corruption policies or guidelines? Have we implemented these policies or guidelines? Are these policies or guidelines attaining their expected goals?
The government should encourage businesses that are successful in implementing anti-corruption policies. For example, this can be done by offering tax benefits to such companies or by giving them preferential treatment when choosing contractors. If a business becomes involved in corruption, but can show that it has anti-corruption policies in place and that it has done what it can to prevent corruption, courts could perhaps consider giving special consideration when issuing a sentence. These methods would all be intended to increase the willingness of businesses to fight corruption.
Second, the government should consider emulating Hong Kong’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (防止賄賂條例) and directly listing corruption in the private sector as a crime. It should also look at US federal criminal law, which has regulations against illegal contributions, as well as US laws on bribery conducted overseas. The government should also take bribery committed overseas and extend it to make it applicable to “being induced to execute or fail to execute any act in violation of the official duties” as mentioned in the current Anti-Corruption Statute (貪汙治罪條例).
In addition, if a business actively engages in bribery, apart from being investigated and having a case brought against it, the firm should be banned from bidding for and working on government projects, as this would stop a company from hoping it might get lucky and gain larger, illegal profits by giving out small amounts of money.
Third, the government should quickly establish a law to protect whistleblowers and help prevent blackmail of businesses to protect and strengthen the resolve of the corporate world to expose corrupt practices.
Fourth, anti-corruption awareness among investors should be promoted so they understand that while a business should work to maximize profit, it should also fulfill its social responsibilities. Corrupt companies violate the rules of fair competition and cause social damage. Investors should abandon such irresponsible companies.
We cannot create a clean government and society overnight. Only by getting the public and private sectors and civil society to work together, bringing together self-regulation and the regulation of others, can Taiwan stop being seen as a “nation of corruption.”
Carol Lin is an assistant professor at National Chiao Tung University’s Graduate Institute of Technology Law and a former lawyer.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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
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
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