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.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS