One of the main reasons the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won the latest presidential election is that voters hate corrupt regimes. By this, I mean that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would probably have had a hard time getting elected had it not been for the corruption case involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2008.
However, over the past three months, the corruption scandals surrounding former Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世), the Water Resources Agency and the Criminal Investigation Bureau have all involved senior civil servants, which proves how flawed Ma’s anti-corruption policies are.
Taiwan has a number of overlapping anti-corruption organizations. However, these organizations often fail to see eye to eye on many issues, causing low morale. The problem with the Agency Against Corruption is that it has a dual salary system: Only a minority of its staff are dedicated anti-corruption officers with judicial police powers and their salaries differ from the general government ethics staff. In addition, all senior positions are held by prosecutors on a cross-departmental basis. Also, the Investigation Bureau has said that because most investigators handling corruption cases are prosecutors, they should not be handling such cases, and over the past two years the bureau has instead started to focus their operations on national security.
Another major part in stopping corruption is property declaration. The Act on Property Declaration by Public Servants (公職人員財產申報法) states that the Control Yuan and government ethics departments have the right to examine the accuracy of property declarations or unusual changes in declared property. Those found to have made false declarations or who are unable to provide an explanation as to why their property has increased can be fined. If they do not correct these issues, they will be held criminally liable. However, this law has been as ineffective as Article 6 of the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例), which pertains to crimes involving unclear sources of property, resulting in no criminal prosecution. If we lack the appropriate abilities to enforce the law, the law will prove difficult to implement.
The aforementioned investigation methods have had no effect in instances like the Lin case, or the case involving Criminal Investigation Bureau chief secretary Hsu Jui-shan (許瑞山).
The key to stopping corruption lies in prevention. In the US, the Internal Revenue Service uses both a specific-item method and an indirect method to investigate unknown sources of funds of those who avoid tax. Although the indirect method is insufficient to prove that certain funds were used to pay for a certain business transaction, it can prove whether there are any discrepancies between funds used to pay for a certain business transaction and the known source of the funds. This can then be used to determine whether the person in question has an unknown source of funds.
The Examination Yuan should draw up a special clause for civil servants that could be used on those who have been found to have an unknown source of funds. While the actions of such individuals may not necessarily meet the requirements needed to constitute a crime, those unwilling to explain the source of their funds or those incapable of offering a satisfactory explanation should be stopped from being a senior manager or holding other important positions.
Establishing a clean government cannot be done by merely setting up new organizations, nor can it be allowed to become a mere election slogan. If we want a clean government, we need concrete methods and actions.
Dan Chan is an assistant professor in the Department of Security Management and Social Work at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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