Party funding, whether it comes from independent investors, joint investments with the government or private actors using financial assets, necessarily begets the allocation of privileges. This is bad for fair competition, it is bad for economic ethics, and it is bad for national productivity and competitiveness. Sole rights and monopoly control help a party, not the populace. Party assets obtained via these business dealings, or “investments,” are essentially dirty money, or what one might call illicit assets.
In the 1960s, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), as a private investor, bought US dollars from the state coffers at a rate of less than NT$25 per US dollar and resold them for between NT$60 and NT$80, “earning” huge gains. In that capital-strapped period, the party tripled its initial principal within three years. That money, if allowed to accumulate value through to today, is certain to be to an astronomical figure.
Two decades ago, the KMT’s Fuh-hwa Securities enjoyed sole rights to securities financing. These rights, together with the interest from its monopoly and the sale of properties it should not have had in the first place, were the principal for the party’s subsequent business operations and financial assets.
In theory, the KMT’s assets can be divided into those gained through legitimate means and non-legitimate means. One way to determine which legitimate assets the KMT “should” still have would be to subtract its accumulated expenditure from its accumulated income from legitimate sources. Some might say it is difficult to distinguish the party’s income from legitimate sources, or its legitimate party assets from non-legitimate ones, and that this would be not be an easy matter to agree on. Those people have a point. Nevertheless, the fact that this difficulty exists is neither here nor there — the crucial thing is party expenditure.
During the 1990s, the KMT spent approximately NT$6 billion (NT$188.37 million) annually and perhaps double that in an election year, meaning that its average annual expenditure during that decade was about NT$9 billion a year. When former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) became party chairman — a position he held until 2005 — this amount increased.
In the 1990s and earlier, prices were lower than today’s and this needs to be accounted for when calculating the KMT’s expenditure, as does accrued interest. Given this, if one calculates the party’s average annual expenditure according to 2000 prices, NT$9 billion is a more accurate figure to go by than NT$6 billion. NT$9 billion over the 60-year period between 1945 and 2005 is NT$540 billion. On top of that, add the expenditure from 2005 to this year, which is known to be NT$2 billion a year since the KMT’s expenditure figures during this period were made public. According to these calculations, the party has spent NT$560 billion at current rates since 1945.
The KMT did not start out with such sizable legitimate party funds. There is disagreement about whether accrued interest and stock dividends to non-specific investors can be deemed legitimate earnings, but most of this concerns the period since the 1990s, the accumulated expenditure for which is, at the very most, in the tens of billions. Even accounting for legitimately obtained funds, there is still a shortfall of more than NT$500 billion, the amount the party funded with money obtained through non-legitimate channels. This should be returned to the public.
Even if the party handed over all its assets, it will not be equal NT$500 billion. The party should not delude itself in thinking that by only retaining its “legitimate” assets it is doing a “good” thing, nor that such an act will, in itself, repair the party’s reputation or dupe people into voting for it.
Lin Kien-tsu is a former director of Tamkang University’s International Business Department.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch