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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with