With charges of dirty tricks flying between the pan-green and pan-blue camps and allegations rolling out from business circles in the midst of the election campaign, the public has gradually been made aware of the relationship between politics and business. What they have seen might be just the tip of the iceberg.
Given today's campaign methods, an enormous amount of money must be spent on TV commercials, print propaganda mobilizing supporters to attend campaign rallies, broadcasting campaign activities and setting up campaign headquarters. The cost is probably much higher than each camp has admitted.
Recently exposed allegations and scandals involve hundreds of millions of NT dollars. Two scenarios are running at the same time now -- "business acquiring government" and "politics controlling business."
If this happened in the US, what would the result be? The answer is that it would not happen. This does not mean US politicians are not corrupt. It means the US' system has limited their freedom to misbehave.
US candidates must declare the political donations they have received. If they fail to do this, they are faced with lawsuits. Naturally those who break the law would have to retire from the political arena.
But in Taiwan, whether one breaks the law depends on one's own definition and whether one has to leave the political arena is one's own choice. Such a big gray area should make US politicians jealous in the extreme.
The US' Lobby Law stipulates that politicians must fill out forms after meetings with representatives of interest groups to record the time and place of the meeting and the issues discussed.
This is the only way to rein in corruption. But in Taiwan, business conglomerates have various channels through which they can meet with important government officials.
Former US vice president Al Gore was criticized for making calls from his White House office to raise funds. To be frank, the people of Taiwan are very envious of such a "scandal." Comparing that with the allegations of corruption in our presidential campaign, it is clear that, although our referendum laws are more "democratic" than those in the US, our democracy still has a long way to go.
Emile Sheng is an associate professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS