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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS