Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches.
Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems.
Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is a tool of the party. However, as China’s economic strength grows, the flow of funds within the military has become larger, providing a hotbed for corruption. Particularly in areas such as weapons research and development, logistical support and military construction, corruption is almost unavoidable due to a lack of transparency and the centralization of power.
Corruption scandals have often erupted in units such as the PLA Rocket Force and the Equipment Development Department, which have also shown the systemic problems in military governance. Miao was responsible for all personnel appointments and ideological maintenance in the military. His fall is believed to have involved a large-scale network of corruption — especially a large number of navy generals that he promoted, the level of warship readiness, and collusion between state-run enterprizes and the PLA’s procurement system.
Since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office, he has adopted a heavy-handed anti-corruption policy to reform the military. However, Miao’s fall proves that corruption inside the PLA has not yet been eradicatede. This reflects the contradiction between the anti-corruption goal and the military’s systemic problems: Xi wants to consolidate his control over the military through his anti-corruption drive, but the internal power mechanism of the PLA makes it difficult to eradicate corruption. Originally, Miao’s department was responsible for maintaining military discipline and political loyalty, so his involvement in corruption is ironic.
Although Xi’s “reign of terror” over the military has now effectively secured its political loyalty, it has to a degree contributed to the general insecurity of military officers and low morale. This sense of insecurity might cause a culture of “complying in public, opposing in private” and “formalism,” jeopardizing China’s military power.
The investigation into Miao might lead to a bigger corruption issue that might even affect the subordinates that he promoted. Chinese Minister of National Defense Dong Jun (董軍) is also allegedly being investigated for corruption just a year after taking the post. This highlights that corruption has spread into the PLA leadership. Meanwhile, Xi’s review mechanism for official recommendations fails to identify potential risks. Although the military has denied that Dong is under investigation, the outside world remains pessimistic about his future.
As events unfold, the international community is watching not only Dong’s fate, but also whether the CCP could stabilize its power while simultaneously resolving the PLA’s systemic corruption problems. What is needed is not just a personnel change or policy adjustments, but a change to the way the CCP operates.
In the absence of proper civil monitoring and an independent judicial system, it is very difficult for the CCP to monitor itself. Therefore corruption is certain to persist in the PLA, affecting the level of its overall combat readiness and military power.
Liao Ming-hui is a Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research assistant researcher.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS