The corruption case involving former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) has left many people dumbfounded and wondering how the situation got so out of hand. This incident presents many challenges to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) vow to have “clean politics” and he now has to consider how to turn this crisis into an opportunity for positive change.
Ma has declared that he will get to the bottom of this case and that anyone involved will be investigated, regardless of their position. I agree with this approach, but systemic change also requires political and administrative controls, maybe even more. If only Lin’s actions and criminal liability are investigated, then the results will not necessarily affect or change the systemic and environmental factors which lie at the heart of political corruption.
If systemic factors are not changed, other people may make similar mistakes in the future. In addition to the personal factors which contributed to Lin’s alleged wrongdoing, the systemic problems behind the incident must also be understood. There are at least three systemic failings that hinder clean politics:
First, there is a lack of transparency in Taiwanese political culture. People know that elections are expensive, so where do election funds come from and what are they spent on? Many people also know that while prosecutors and police have been cracking down on bribery in recent years, a lot of people are still willing to risk engaging in corruption. It is also widely believed, especially among politicians, that it is impossible to get elected unless one shells out a lot of money and that “vote captains” (樁腳) will not actively solicit votes without receiving “walking fees” (走路工).
In such an electoral culture, elected politicians must find ways to get back the money they invest in their campaigns. Alternatively, they will resort to doing everything they can to “serve” anyone who gives them major political contributions.
Second, political contributions lack transparency. In 2004, the legislature passed the Political Donations Act (政治獻金法), but the act has had a limited impact on political contributions over the past few years.
Corruption is still rife in many areas and political contributions are often used to perform a kind of lobbying function. Enforcing the act has proven difficult and political contributions have been forced underground because Taiwanese politics cannot exist without lobbying and the power of personal relations. However, most importantly, a lot of corruption exists because lobbying and political contributions are not done transparently, which leads to a lot of inappropriate and secretive competition. This is how many problems involving dirty politics come into being, which is especially true when dealing with so-called “businesses without capital” that are capable of bringing the bid winner huge economic gains, or with competition for bids for the handling of toxic and non-toxic waste.
Third, the administration is not transparent enough. For a long time, despite requirements of openness and transparency in bidding for construction contracts, projects for the handling of toxic waste have been complicated. Various “factors” have made it necessary for bidders to develop all sorts of tricks, including lobbying and applying pressure in various ways to win contacts. At certain times, even officials and their underworld counterparts are used to apply pressure to “settle” bids. This naturally affects the quality of the construction projects and connected labor services, which is why so-called “public relations” fees are extremely high for these types of projects.
The Lin case is just the tip of the iceberg and if it were not for those involved being unable to agree on the amount of money changing hands, the whole affair would have probably not been exposed and the same companies would continue to win bids or get special treatment.
Transparency is a key factor in handling the current political corruption crisis. However, the two first points outlined before are political in nature and not necessarily something the president and executive can change straight away. However, the third point is one on which the president and his administrative team can start working immediately. If the government can capitalize on this opportunity to establish transparent government bodies then they can stop, or at least make it harder, for outside interests to get involved in executive operations.
In more concrete terms, the government should start eradicating corruption by picking itself up from where it fell. It should use this most recent case of alleged corruption as an opportunity to transform China Steel Co, CPC Corp, Taiwan, and Taiwan Power Co into open, transparent firms which are subject to public monitoring. The government could use the Lin scandal as a chance to effect positive change.
Judicial methods could also be employed to get rid of corrupt people while personnel changes could remove corrupt senior leaders.
However, if systemic factors such as environmental incentives and information opacity continue, the clean-up of politics will remain limited.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Political Economy and director of the Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing