Comedian and actor George Carlin once said, “The public sucks.” Perhaps he has a point.
Observing politics over the past four years can sometimes make Carlin’s sentiment seem understandable. Let’s face it, no one approves of corruption — unless they benefit from it directly. As Milton Friedman once wrote, we all want a fair system, but we want a system that is fairer for us than for others.
It seems that in the information age people have become particularly susceptible to short-term memory syndrome. We are constantly bombarded with information, some good and some very bad. The minute we take time to analyze arguments that have been presented can be the minute the argument changes. Sometimes arguments are turned on their heads before we even finish watching a YouTube video or reading a news article.
Over the past four years the Taiwanese public, just like the public in other countries, has fallen prey to this short-memory trap. While it is probably true that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and those who worked under him did engage in graft, money laundering and other forms of corruption and that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has led the way in denouncing Chen, his family and members of his administration, some pan-green activists have also been highly critical and probably rightly so. Even this writer was and remains disappointed in “the clean party’s” poor performance regarding corruption during the final years of Chen’s presidency.
However, here’s the problem — two to four years of corruption — even eight years of corruption — during the time the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power, pale when compared to the endemic corruption that took — and continues to take — place within the KMT, and I am not referring to KMT corruption only in Taiwan.
If the KMT takes a long, hard look at its own history, it will find that calling Chen and his associates “corrupt” is really quite amusing. “The pot calling the kettle black” does not even come close here, because pots and kettles are roughly the same size. This would be more like the sun calling the moon an object in outer space or a blue whale calling a single plankton a sea creature. There’s really no comparison.
What is worse, the extent of the corruption cannot really be known because the KMT was able to censor all information when in power. The same holds true now, as the KMT holds power in both the legislature and Executive Yuan. It appears former presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長庭) was right to warn about returning to single-party rule during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Newspapers, individuals, and groups can try their best to expose corruption and the deliberate trampling of rights, but in reality, with little representation in the legislature and no voice in the Cabinet, nothing can really be done about it — at least not at present.
What is worse, the KMT appears to be doing an even worse job of cleaning itself up while in power than the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Even the CCP occasionally offers up some corrupt officials as sacrificial lambs to sate the public’s appetite for justice. The KMT? Not one word. Indeed, the cronyism of the KMT remains the most shocking aspect of its existence.
Ironically, the clearest display of the KMT’s nature was its ability to identify corrupt actions and officials within the DPP almost immediately. In other words, KMT officials knew exactly where to look for corruption based on their own experience of how, where and when to get away with such practices.
I suppose that’s why former criminals are often used to help solve crimes. They have first-hand knowledge of the criminal mindset and the loopholes and other weaknesses in the system.
Despite all of this uproar over how corrupt DPP officials were during their eight years in power, we need to remember why it was the DPP came to power in the first place. One of the major reasons was because the KMT was then — and still is today — so corrupt.
We have every right to be disappointed in Chen and his associates, but in being disappointed, we should also realize that before the DPP came to power, corruption was the rule, not the exception and there was no safe way for anyone to voice displeasure. That was a major reason why the KMT “lost” China and a contributory factor in their loss of the presidency.
Nathan Novak is a writer, researcher and student of China and the Asia-Pacific region, with particular focus on cross-strait relations.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS