Many have been hopeful that Taiwan’s democratization, touted as a success story, would lead the nation toward the maturation of its democracy every step of the way, with every election freer and fairer than the previous ones as the state protects democratic values by upholding the principle of administrative neutrality.
However, recent incidents suggest otherwise, with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration again managing to amaze with its brazenness. In the ongoing controversy over the National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH) MG149 bank account involving independent Taipei mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), it appears the entire party-state apparatus has been mobilized to attack Ko on all fronts.
Foremost, from the judicial front: The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office is investigating charges filed last month by KMT Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾), who accused Ko of laundering money with the account, which he had set up for the surgical intensive care unit team he led at NTUH.
Then, from the executive branch front: The National Audit Office of the Control Yuan is also investigating the account after KMT Legislator Alex Fai (費鴻泰) demanded that it “examine the MG149 account closely” or else “[the office’s] budget request will not be passed.”
There was, without doubt, an undertone to Fai’s remarks — which essentially amounted to a threat — that his idea of “examining the account closely” implied an imperative to find irregularities in the account.
Then there was confirmation from the Ministry of Finance’s National Taxation Bureau of Taipei on Tuesday that, after what it claimed was an informant’s tipoff, it is investigating Ko for alleged tax evasion, and has ordered several institutions where Ko was invited to give speeches in the past three years to explain payments they made to Ko.
Then, from the legislative branch front: The public was treated to an unbelievable scene at the legislature on Monday in which volleys of questions were fired by KMT lawmakers grilling NTUH president Huang Kuan-tang (黃冠棠) over the bank account. Imagine a joint meeting called by the legislature’s Finance Committee and the Education and Culture Committee with the sole topic throughout the session being one account associated with one particular mayoral candidate — if this does not constitute lawmakers abusing their legislative power by interfering with a judicial case, then what does?
The extent to which the KMT administration seems to be exploiting the state apparatus for electoral purposes is beyond comprehension, and appalling.
However, the crux of the matter is that there has been no evidence suggesting a single cent from the account has gone into Ko’s pockets; the NTUH and the National Audit Office have both maintained since Lo lodged the allegation that there were no irregularities in the operation of the MG149 account.
In light of the developments so far, it appears that the object of the KMT lawmakers, and the KMT government for that matter, is not to resolve questions over the account after all, but to trash Ko’s reputation.
The MG149 probe is reminiscent of the Yu Chang allegations of 2012 involving then-Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who, after being accused of manipulating investments by the National Development Fund in TaiMed Biologics Inc during her stint as vice premier in 2007, was ultimately cleared by the judiciary of any wrongdoing.
As Ko correctly put it the other day, “the KMT was never punished over Yu Chang, it only benefited from the incident, which led to the MG149 case today.”
The electorate really has to take note, or this sort of behavior from the KMT will just happen again and again — which would not bode well for democracy.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if