This government is fond of quoting the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). The question is whether it is misrepresenting PERC’s research.
Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓), in his response to a Nov. 14 open letter from academics and other concerned voices abroad, sought to deflect allegations of political meddling in the trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) by citing PERC (“GIO response to Nov. 13 open letter,” Dec. 18, page 8).
Su’s response rebuts various concerns about the state of democracy in Taiwan by citing reports from organizations abroad. Two of these are Freedom House and Transparency International. The third section is subheaded “Political and Economic Risk Consultancy: Taiwan’s judicial system fair, independent.”
PERC’s reports are only available by paid subscription, so the question is whether the Government Information Office is hoping no one will bother to expend resources to check what PERC is actually saying.
In April, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) put on a bit of a show and surprised reporters by presiding over a press conference to say that he was disturbed by a PERC report and was launching a three-month judicial and governmental review on corruption.
“Taiwan’s degree of corruption was unexpectedly worse than that of mainland China,” Ma cited the report as showing, adding that Taiwan’s democratic principles and values had been “tarnished.” He further said this catastrophe was mostly the result of corruption under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration.
Ma even asked the premier to launch an anti-graft commission and the Ministry of Justice immediately joined the crusade.
No one would argue that graft is not a serious problem in Taiwan, but the sincerity of Ma’s campaign was questionable, particularly considering his focus on the DPP and considering that he misinterpreted the PERC report that had so “distressed” him.
The PERC report did not in fact conclude that corruption was worse in Taiwan than China, nor was it a study focused on corruption in the Chen administration. It focused on perceptions (among businesspeople) of corruption in both the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) (“Ma interpreted corruption report incorrectly: author,” April 11, page 1).
An embarrassing mistake, to say the least.
Now PERC makes another appearance, this time in Su’s article.
“According to the latest Asian Intelligence report issued on Nov. 4 by the widely respected Hong Kong firm Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Ltd, it is generally believed that in the Chen Shui-bian case, the court proceedings have been transparent, the evidence against him is convincing and the judiciary has operated independently — not as a political tool of the Kuomintang (KMT),” Su wrote.
“This illustrates the fairness and independence of our judicial system as appraised by international investigative organizations,” he wrote.
What is Su implying with the phrase “it is generally believed?” Believed by whom — the public or judicial observers and other experts abroad? He is conveniently ambiguous.
The “report” Su is referring to is a fortnightly newsletter that summarizes developments in Asian business and politics. The Nov. 4 issue is titled “Dangers involved with ignoring the obvious.”
The four paragraphs devoted to Taiwan are not a study of Taiwan’s judiciary, nor is it logical to conclude that they “illustrate the fairness and independence of our judicial system as appraised by international investigative organizations.”
The newsletter says the Chen trial was “widely seen as being transparent,” the evidence was “fairly compelling” and the courts “came off as independent.” That comprises two sentences of the four paragraphs.
The rest of the passage discusses grave problems with corruption in both the DPP and the KMT and public skepticism over the parties’ efforts to tackle graft.
It refers to Ma’s efforts as KMT chairman to rehold the scandal-plagued KMT Central Standing Committee election as an “empty gesture” unlikely to change public opinion.
Ma has promised to offload the KMT’s business interests, it says, “but these promises have dragged on for so many years ... that the KMT is still seen by many as much for its business clout as for its political influence.”
“Big incidents” of corruption within the KMT “continue to be covered up” and those responsible “are rarely held accountable,” it says.
I wonder if Su would be willing to describe these comments as reflective of the appraisals of international investigative organizations. Probably not.
Next time this government cites PERC, take its claims with a grain of salt.
Celia Llopis-Jepsen is an editor at the Taipei Times.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS