Embroiled in multiple scandals, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday announced that he would apply for a three-month leave of absence from his role as party leader, creating uncertainty about the future of the TPP and the “new politics” that he had promised to bring.
Shortly after his announcement, Ko’s home and office were searched and he was questioned by prosecutors over his suspected involvement in a corruption case related to a real-estate development project.
He was arrested early Saturday morning after he refused to be questioned at night and attempted to leave the prosecutors’ office.
In the first half of the year, Ko was listed as a suspect due to possible misuse of public power for private profit and contravening the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例) for his involvement in the Core Pacific City (京華城) mall redevelopment and the Beitou Shilin Science Park (北投士林科技園區) projects, both passed in his second term as Taipei mayor.
Last month, pundits and Ko’s former aides noticed discrepancies in Ko’s campaign finance reporting, including irregular and opaque transactions with a few marketing firms, as well as more than NT$4 million (US$125,235) being transferred to Ko’s personal bank account.
To make matters worse, local Chinese-language media reported on Tuesday that Ko’s wife, Peggy Chen (陳佩琪), recently visited, with a view to possibly buying, a NT$120 million luxury apartment in Taipei, leading to speculation about how the family could afford it.
After it was recently reported that Ko in May paid NT$43 million in cash for an office unit, he admitted to using his presidential election subsidy to purchase the unit.
These reports contradict the TPP’s claim to being “transparent, honest and upright” and “rational, pragmatic and scientific.”
While Ko’s housing decisions were not illegal, they have seriously damaged his reputation of having integrity, and the allegations of suspected corruption in development projects might even lead to his imprisonment.
Since the TPP’s founding on Aug. 6 — Ko’s birthday — five years ago, it has been widely seen as a “one-man party” with Ko at its center.
His inordinate role in the party can be seen by how he single-handedly signed an agreement with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) during the presidential election, and then arbitrarily backed out of it, expelling online influencers from the party who criticized him and receiving more votes in January’s presidential election than the TPP won votes in the legislative election.
The party says it has a “pragmatic” — or as its critics say, a “chameleon” — stance on ideology and policy, but while it has attracted young people who dislike the confrontation between the KMT and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the party lacks a solid political philosophy and clear direction.
The now temporarily rudderless TPP leaves many people wondering whether the new “third force” in the nation’s political scene is beginning to wither, or whether it can overcome the crisis and persevere.
Recent polls show that the party’s support has dropped. However, the crisis could be an opportunity for it to transform into a healthier organization with a clearer organizational structure, code of conduct and realistic long-term goals rather than serving as a platform for the whims of one man.
The TPP still retains its eight seats and the balance of power in the legislature (as neither the KMT nor the DPP holds a majority).
However, it remains to be seen whether the TPP would continue its strategy of only cooperating with the KMT or whether it would start working with the DPP to pass bills that would truly benefit the public and restore the TPP’s reputation.
Having the title doctor or the letters PhD after your name carries the connotation of having broad knowledge. In reality, while people with doctoral degrees often possess highly specialized expertise and might be held in high esteem among their peers, they are likely virtually unknown to the general public. In Taiwan, people with doctorates are common, while probably fewer than one out of 100 of them could truly make a name for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions. Those who gain media exposure can easily become well-known, especially if they are involved in politics. However, many fail to live up to
Over the past few years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a visible change in the EU’s approach to Taiwan. I call this phenomenon European hype about Taiwan. The change is noticeable at both the EU and member-state levels, with parliaments and Central Europe leading the way. The best example is the fact that Taiwan is finally mentioned in various EU documents (a real novelty compared with the past 30 years), in addition to statements by European politicians, an increase in bilateral contacts, a growing awareness of Taiwan’s importance and its contribution not only to European prosperity, but
Recent Taiwan-focused literature in the Philippines has mostly been about the risks to the 150,000 Filipino workers based in the country and Manila’s possible military entanglement in a Taiwan contingency due to the Philippines’ mutual defense pact with the US. While these geopolitical quandaries are consequential, due regard should also be given to how relations developed between the Philippines and Taiwan, especially after then-president Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration initiated the New Southbound Policy in September 2016. The regional policy’s rationale is similar to South Korea’s New Southern Policy, launched in 2017, which aims to hedge against overdependence on China and develop
The Chinese government’s sensitivity toward the Dalai Lama is a complex issue rooted in historical, political and cultural factors. Understanding this sensitivity requires delving into the intricate relationship between China and Tibet, as well as the broader implications of the Dalai Lama’s influence. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, fled Tibet in 1959 following a failed uprising against Chinese rule. Since then, he has lived in exile in India, continuing to advocate for the rights and autonomy of the Tibetan people. Despite his public stance of seeking genuine autonomy rather than full independence for Tibet, the Chinese government