Is President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government corrupt? To answer this question, one need not resort to opinion polls, since there are academics in Taiwan conducting specialized research into this question. Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) teaches a political economy course at National Taiwan University (NTU), and the study of corruption is one of the specializations offered. To gauge corruption levels, Chen takes daily media reports of corruption cases and uses various methods to come up with empirical results. Any one who wants to know whether the Ma administration is corrupt can always ask Chen.
The Economist recently featured an article on Transparency International’s (TI) 2013 Global Corruption Barometer report. According to the report’s findings, Taiwan ranks very high among corrupt countries, at No. 18 in the world. This news came as no surprise. Local media outlets all carried stories about the report, and the more the Ma government attempted to refute the findings, the more news articles came out.
What is interesting is that on Thursday last week — the day the news broke — local media also reported that People First Party (PFP) Legislator Lin Cheng-er (林正二) was found guilty of vote buying, and that former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Chung Shao-ho (鍾紹和) was sentenced to eight years in prison for bribery. As the Judicial Yuan, the Ministry of Justice and the Agency Against Corruption were busy refuting TI’s report, these two corruption scandals became perfect examples of what the report is talking about.
On Friday last week, Ma had the Presidential Office rejecting the report, saying that neither Taiwan nor Taiwanese found it acceptable. However, according to an opinion poll run by the Chinese-language Apple Daily on Thursday, 75 percent of respondents said they agreed with TI’s report. So, it was Ma who could not accept it, not Taiwanese. Ma needs to be careful. It is he who has lost face; he should not seek to involve the public.
On Friday last week, local media reported that two prosecutors in Nantou County allegedly visited a hostess bar; that the government-sponsored rock musical Dreamers (夢想家) cost NT$200 million (US$6.7 million) and that the agencies responsible for it were censured by the Control Yuan; and that Nantou County Commissioner Lee Chao-ching (李朝卿) of the KMT was on trial for bribery. Then on Saturday, Taiwan High Court prosecutor Chen Yu-chen (陳玉珍) was also accused of taking bribes, along with Shaw Kuo-ning (邵國寧), the brother-in-law of Greater Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強).
So, is the Ma administration corrupt? Some say that voters always know what is really going on. After being in office for five years, voters have seen through Ma and opinion polls only confirm what everybody already knows.
In all honesty, it is not only voters that are clear about what is going on. The Ministry of Justice also knows what is going on. The day TI released its findings, the ministry cherry picked the more flattering parts, put them online and issued a press release. Clearly, then, the ministry accepts and trusts this barometer.
The most ironic move of all is that the ministry subsequently used research it had commissioned NTU politics professor Hung Yung-tai (洪永泰) to conduct, which stated that only 3.3 percent of Taiwanese have ever paid a bribe. However, can fabricated surveys conducted by interested parties have any credibility? Will the public trust them?
The Ma administration has questioned TI’s decision to use a Chinese market research agency to conduct the survey, saying this gives cause to doubt the findings. However, when it comes down to it, there can be but two interpretations of the TI report’s findings: that they were part of a deliberate smear campaign, or that they were fair.
If the former is true, it is clear that Ma has sold himself out to the Chinese Communist Party and that China still views Taiwan as its enemy. If the second is true, there is no point at all in Ma protesting it. So, regardless of whether it was a smear tactic, Ma ends up a loser.
Chin Heng-wei is an associate professor in the Department of Law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS