Political commentator and former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member Luo You-zhi (羅友志) on Monday last week accused New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of offering him a bribe in exchange for dropping out of a race in the city’s Eighth Electoral District in 2014, when Hou was deputy mayor.
Luo said Hou offered him NT$5 million (US$163,281 at the current exchange rate) as “campaign funding” if he ran in the 11th district instead.
Luo said he refused Hou’s alleged offer to conduct so inn a teng (搓圓仔湯, “kneading to make rice ball soup”), a Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese) term that often refers to coaxing a candidate to drop out of a race by offering money.
Although a politician has filed a complaint against Hou, it is difficult to punish someone for “making rice balls,” due to difficulties in implementing related laws.
The original scope of punishment under Article 97, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) was limited to the election of civil servants. It could not be applied to primary elections within political parties.
However, party primaries are an important part of the democratic process, and sometimes they are even more intense than elections for public offices.
In a country governed by the rule of law, it should not be possible for a person to be nominated through improper means, but it cannot be regulated by the law.
When the act was amended in 2007, Article 101, Paragraph 1 particularly extended the provisions on taking and giving bribes, as well as the practice of “making rice balls,” to party primaries.
Article 101, Paragraph 1 states: “For the nomination of candidates for various civil servants within the political party referred to in Article 2 implemented by the political party, from the day when the nomination operation is publicized and during the period specified for operating nomination, any of the candidates within the political party who performs any of the actions prescribed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 97 shall be punished.”
In Hou’s case, although the parties involved did not reach an agreement, the crime of bribery in Article 97, Paragraph 1 of the act is more a “behavioral offense” than a “consequential offense.” As long as someone makes a factual request and offers an improper gain, even if the negotiation did not succeed and no money was ever paid, the crime is considered to have been committed. Offenders face a jail term of three to 10 years.
Also, Article 80, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code states: “Prosecution is barred by limitation if not exercised within the following periods: 20 years for an offense that carries the maximum principal punishment of imprisonment for not less than three years and the maximum punishment for less than 10 years.”
Plus, it is not an offense that can be instituted only upon complaint, so prosecutors have an obligation to investigate the case.
However, despite the relatively heavy penalty for “making rice balls,” the prosecution of the offense has been ineffective. Even though the scope of penalty was expanded to cover party primaries in 2007, the election systems of party primaries are not subject to the same legal restrictions as elections for public offices. Also, because party primaries are conducted within parties, that allows a small number of people to make arbitrary decisions internally.
In an election process that lacks transparency, even if someone who is persuaded to drop out of a race can identify the time, place and content of a bribery attempt, it is never easy to find an objective third party who had witnessed the closed-door negotiations.
Moreover, a defendant is under the protection of the “privilege against self-incrimination,” which means that as long as he denies the accusation, the possibility of conviction is slim. Nevertheless, this case can be viewed as a test for the integrity of a presidential candidate.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor of law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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 US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
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
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
RSS