“No matter how high the levels of officials involved, how wide the scale of a case and how big the number of people who are alleged to be involved, the government will definitely not cover it up, delay [the investigation] nor twist [the accounts.] The probe should go wherever the evidence leads.”
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) made that promise on July 17 at a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Standing Committee meeting as he, as party chairman, spoke publicly for the first time about the corruption scandal surrounding former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世).
However, noting the progress, or lack thereof, made by the prosecutors in their probe of the case, raises the question whether Ma’s words were meant to be interpreted the other way around.
Members of the public have reason to be doubtful of the president’s sincerity in getting to the bottom of the Lin case, considering how little the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID) has achieved since Lin was taken into custody on July 2.
It has been almost two months since the allegations of Lin demanding and taking bribes first hit national headlines, yet a number of key individuals, including Lin’s father, Lin Hsien-pao (林仙保), and Vice President Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) sister-in-law, Hau Ying-chiao (郝英嬌), have yet to be questioned despite their reported roles in the case.
On Monday, the Taipei District Court, on grounds that Lin might collude with others to provide false testimony and destroy evidence, granted the SID’s request to extend his detention for another two months and to hold him incommunicado till Oct. 31.
Seeing how the SID has seemingly dragged its feet in questioning possible accomplices and probing funds relating to the alleged bribery, one wonders whether keeping Lin on ice for another two months may just be a diversionary tactic aimed at keeping the news about Lin from the public long enough for people to begin to forget about the case. That would allow the SID to wrap up the case with the focus on Lin and Lin alone. After all, he has reportedly confessed to having accepted NT$63 million (US$2.1 million) from a metal-recycling company owner in 2010 to secure a metal-recycling contract from state-controlled China Steel Corp.
According to a survey conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank late last month, Ma’s “integrity index” has taken a hit since the Lin case made headlines. When asked to rate the president’s integrity on a scale of zero to 10, Ma’s score fell from 5.84 in May to 5.43 last month.
The same survey also showed that half of the respondents were not happy with the performance of the SID, saying it had been “passive” in its probe into the case.
“It is really unfortunate that corruption happened, but what’s more important is the approach taken in tackling the case, which must be one of absolute determination in a bid to win back people’s trust,” Ma has said, asking the public “to be at ease and know that the government is absolutely confident that it could prevent similar corruption cases from happening again.”
If Ma truly is as serious about building a clean government and eradicating corruption as he says he is, the Lin case gives the SID and other investigators a great opportunity to show that they do have the teeth to go after a big case however high the levels of officials involved, wide the scale of the case and big the number of people allegedly involved.
Otherwise the Lin case will be yet another example of watch what Ma does — or does not do — instead of taking his words at face value. Ma has proven his ability to make grand promises, but he has yet to show he can keep his word when it matters.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers