To contend that elections in Taiwan are a money pit would meet little challenge. There is little doubt, either, that major financial groups play the role of banker in the background, funding campaigns — either willingly or under duress — through political donations.
Generally speaking, the political philosophy of such institutions goes something like this: Political donations should be seen as purchasing insurance. They dole out the cash to the political parties and candidates with whom they see eye-to-eye, while being careful not to tread on the toes of those with whom they do not agree, for they do not want to create any political enemies if they can help it. This is akin to third-party insurance.
For the parties or candidates that do not quite make the grade, so long as they show their face, they will not be rejected either. This is like accident insurance.
Of course, all of this transpires out of sight, behind closed doors. For the people involved, the less the public is privy to it, the better. No clues are left, there is no paper trail to follow. To reveal how much was donated, and to which party, would be breaking a major taboo for the financial institutions.
Business magnates like Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC Corp chairwoman Cher Wang (王雪紅), senior Ting Hsin International Group executive Wei Ying-chun (魏應充) and Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) all praise the anticorruption efforts of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government, saying how they are good for the public and good for business, and then put their name to events supporting Ma’s presidential ticket, giving talks up and down the country.
The brazen way in which they go about this serves to demonstrate that these people do not just represent any ordinary corporation, they have a major cross-strait conglomerate behind them. They and their chums in the leadership on either side of the Taiwan Strait are all in this together.
How does the saying go? “Let the moneyed contribute money, let the strong put forth their strength.”
However, are these millionaires and billionaires simply offering their services and not contributing any money? The major financial institutions are the main source of political donations. Does it make sense to suggest that the billionaires behind them are merely putting in the time, and not putting their hands deep into their pockets? If they are donating money, are they really keeping to the NT$3 million (US$93,759) limit for political donations as stipulated in the Election and Recall Act (公務人員選舉罷免法)? Ma says that Wei did not make any political donations whatsoever. Is that credible?
On Dec. 25, before even taking office, then-Taipei mayor-elect Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) announced that the exclusive bus lanes along Zhongxiao W Road in front of Taipei Railway Station would be demolished. Three days later, at 11.40am, all five lanes along that stretch of road were once more in use, with traffic flowing both ways. Former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) had decided to do this exact same thing on three occasions during his eight years in office, but for some reason was much more timid in his approach. In the same way, Ko achieved this with just over NT$4 million, compared to the NT$10 million that Hau had projected it would cost. How do you even begin to account for such a huge difference?
What Hau wanted to do in eight years he never did achieve. Ko got the job done within a couple of days. Clearly, the difference was the person in the driving seat. Perhaps what happened with the bus lanes reveals a lot about corruption in government when political donations are such a large part of the equation.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Paul Cooper
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS