“Highest moral standards” has been a popular catchphrase for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
The public has heard him extol the importance of holding to high moral standards in his campaign speeches. Trumpeting the government’s continued quest for an incorruptible civil service and clean politics, he has lectured government officials on the need to engage in introspection and hold themselves to the “highest moral standards.” Most recently, Ma, who doubles as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman, said moral concerns were behind the party’s decision to strip Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of his KMT membership over what he said was improper lobbying by Wang.
Actions speak louder than words, however, and the latest revelation concerning Cabinet members’ assets in China has the public doubting whether Ma can truly practice what he preaches.
On Wednesday it was revealed that Mongolian and Tibetan Commission Minister and Minister Without Portfolio Tsai Yu-ling (蔡玉玲), along with her husband, possess assets worth NT$100 million (US$3.37 million) in China.
Tsai is the nation’s highest official in affairs relating to Mongolia and Tibet, and the commission she heads serves as a platform to help other government agencies deal with such matters.
Given the obvious “China factor” involved in issues pertaining to Tibet, Tsai’s blatant failure to avoid a conflict of interest is beyond belief. Even more dumbfounding is that the Ma administration appears to see no problem with it.
On Wednesday Tsai said all the property she possesses in China is legally owned and that she has declared her assets to the Control Yuan.
Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said that Tsai’s case poses no problem legally, while the Mainland Affairs Council, citing the Act Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例), said that the law does not forbid Taiwanese from owning property in China.
So much for Ma’s repeated calls for officials to heed public perception.
While it may be true that Tsai’s possession of assets in China is legal, the obvious conflict of interest has prompted many to wonder whether the commission, under Tsai’s lead, could effectively execute its mission and ensure the interests of Mongolians and Tibetans are met.
For example, would the commission be genuinely engaged in concrete actions to help exiled Tibetans and give support to human rights groups? Would Tsai dare to extend an invitation to Taiwan to the Dalai Lama? Would she dare to take part in a parade marking the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule or show concern for Tibetans who protest Chinese rule of Tibet through self-immolation? Would she be willing to get in touch with Tibetan exiles and the Tibetan government-in-exile and show concern for Tibetans’ struggle for freedom?
Or would Tsai, fearful of angering Beijing and putting her China-based assets at risk, choose to look the other way and ignore the relationship between Taiwan and the exiled Tibetan government? Worse, how could the Taiwanese public be certain that she would not in any way be compromised, becoming an accomplice to Beijing’s “united front” strategy or be held hostage by Beijing as a result of her assets in China?
The conflict of interest on Tsai’s part is not only out of sync with Ma’s statements about high moral standards, it poses a valid cause for concern.
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
RSS