It is almost certain that political infighting was involved in accusations of influence peddling against the legislative speaker and the related wiretapping scandal.
Yet, while they have been described by some as a national disgrace, they could be a good thing for Taiwan.
On Friday, the Special Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office said Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus convener Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) had in June telephoned Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), asking him to lobby then-justice minister Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) and Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office Head Prosecutor Chen Shou-huang (陳守煌) to persuade a prosecutor not to appeal Ker’s case in the Supreme Court after Ker was acquitted of embezzling funds in 1997 from Formosa Telecom.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who in the past has always called for thorough investigations into allegations of misconduct against his KMT comrades — such as in the case of former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) — this time promptly accused Wang of having lobbied on Ker’s behalf and said on Sunday that Wang’s conduct marked “the darkest day in Taiwan’s democratic history.”
It is well-known that Wang, as a KMT member and legislative speaker, did not always carry out Ma’s instructions in the legislature, and many suspect Ma is using the case to strip Wang of his political status and power.
It is political purging, as well as influence peddling, that should be seen as a national disgrace.
However, the incident offers a good opportunity for Taiwanese to understand the direction the nation has been taking.
For too long, Taiwanese have been described as mild-mannered in the way they treat politicians and interpret politics. For example, they will accept “minor corruption,” as long as politicians “do something good for the people.”
Historically, Taiwanese have not retaliated against the government until they have personally seen, or been at the receiving end of, extreme treatment. Some argue this is why Taiwan has missed several golden opportunities to mature into a full democracy.
Yet the extremes seem to have become norms. A few worrying examples are the Ma administration’s treatment of the suspicious death of an army corporal, the land expropriation cases in Miaoli County and the government’s insistence on resuming construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), despite strong public disapproval.
Also troubling is the merciless and brutal infighting in the Ministry of National Defense, the Control Yuan and now the Ministry of Justice and the KMT, and how Ma pays lip service to “upholding the Constitution,” but actually treats it as if it were not worth the paper it was written on.
After former DPP president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) corruption scandal, many DPP supporters came to despise their party and the DPP hit rock bottom. The party has had to go back to square one and try to regain the electorate’s trust all over again. This is why, as disgraceful as the current controversy may be, perhaps the silver lining is that for domestic politics and the KMT, there is nowhere to go in the future except up.
History tells us that when Taiwanese reach their darkest point, they will say enough is enough and will take action to put the country back on track.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS