[英語對話／中英字幕] 黃國昌 3/23 板橋演講解析! 道盡政府貪腐雙標！#看政治學英語 [ 國際可能不了解台灣，靠你我的轉發，為真相找出口！]#看政治學英語 ⁨@KC-Huang

Subtitles section Play video

All right, so for this deep dive, we're going to really try to unpack the key arguments and the specific examples that Huang Guochang laid out in this speech.
And you know, we'll consider how similar situations might be viewed and handled in more established democracies.
Yeah, because that's the thing that really gets you thinking, right?
Like, how would this play out in, say, the U.S. or the U.K.?
Exactly.
So let's dive into this transcript.
Okay.
So Huang Guochang, he starts his speech by really emphasizing Taiwanese identity and this core principle that in a democracy, the people hold the ultimate power.
Right.
It's like setting the stage.
Yeah.
It's a strong opening that sets the stage for his criticisms of the current administration.
And it's smart because he's appealing to a shared sense of identity and democratic values before he launches into his critique.
Exactly.
And then he quickly pivots to criticizing the DPP.
Yeah, he doesn't hold back, does he?
He basically argues that the DPP has become what it once opposed.
Right.
So he's suggesting this disconnect between their steady commitment to democracy and their actions in power. And he points to this belief within the DPP that, you know, once they're in power, they shouldn't be subject to the same level of scrutiny.
Yeah.
Like they're above it all.
Right.
And that there shouldn't be this rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of how taxpayer money is being spent.
Right.
And a key part of this critique is the idea that the government might be using public funds to influence public opinion through favorable media outlets.
Yeah.
It's like using the people's money to control what they see and hear.
Right.
And to illustrate this misuse of public funds, he gives some specific examples.
Like what?
Well, he mentions the Employment Security Fund, which he claims was used for things like the labor minister's photo sessions and extravagant office decorations for a labor development agency head. So using public money for personal gain, basically.
Right.
And he also alleges that these funds were channeled to support pro-DPP media organizations like Sanli and FTV.
Hmm.
That's pretty serious.
It is.
And what's striking is how he directly challenges President Lai Ching-te and Premier Cho Jong-tae demanding transparency about the whereabouts of these funds.
Yeah.
He even uses that line, is this Lai Ching-te's money?
Is this Cho Jong-tae's money?
It's a very pointed way to remind everyone that this is public money we're talking about. And this then leads into his broader criticism of budget oversight. He argues that in any real democracy, the parliament must have the power to scrutinize the budget.
Which makes sense, right?
I mean, how else can you hold the government accountable for how they're spending taxpayer money?
Exactly.
And to emphasize this point, he compares Taiwan to China and North Korea.
Oh, wow.
So he's really drawing a line in the sand there.
He is.
He's essentially saying that resisting scrutiny of government spending is undemocratic.
That's a pretty bold statement.
It is.
And he takes it further by arguing that the DPP, a party that historically championed democracy, now allegedly opposes any meaningful questioning or oversight of government spending.
So he's accusing them of hypocrisy, basically.
Exactly.
And he presents it as this fundamental betrayal of their original ideals.
It's a pretty strong accusation.
It is.
And then he moves on to the issue of increased government spending.
OK.
He says that the central government's total budget has grown from about $2 trillion NT in 2017, when Tsai Ing-wen first took office, to around $2.924 trillion NT currently.
So an increase of almost 50 percent.
Right.
And he asks a simple but important question.
Has this increase in spending led to a corresponding 50 percent improvement in public services?
Or is it just a sign of fiscal irresponsibility?
Exactly.
Or maybe a misallocation of resources.
Yeah.
It's a question that every government should be asking themselves. Then he turns his attention to the defense budget, another area that has seen increased spending.
OK.
He mentions the figures going from about $320 billion NT in 2017 to around $470 billion NT currently.
So a significant increase there as well.
Right.
And he directly addresses the accusation that the opposition is against defense spending.
By pointing out the actual increase.
Exactly.
He's saying, look, the money is there, but is it being used effectively?
Right.
It's not about opposing defense spending in principle.
It's about accountability and making sure the money is being well spent.
Exactly.
And this leads into a very serious allegation.
What's that?
The alleged procurement of substandard bulletproof vests from China.
Whoa.
That's a huge accusation, especially given the current political climate.
It is.
And he claims that the head of Little Ing's Free Association was connected to the company involved.
So suggesting a possible conflict of interest.
Right.
And he emphasizes that no one face consequences because of the statute of limitations.
Which is a whole other issue.
It is.
And he really highlights the contradiction with the DPP's resist China, protect Taiwan stance.
Right.
How can you be so vehemently against China and then allegedly buy faulty equipment from them for your own soldiers?
Exactly.
It's a pretty damning accusation.
It is.
And it raises serious questions about the government's priorities.
Absolutely.
So then he moves on to a case involving Chen Shih-tzu and the National Development Fund.
OK.
What happened there?
So this guy Chen Shih-tzu, he wanted to use 13 billion NT from the National Development Fund.
Which is a lot of money.
It is to buy a garment factory in China. And what's interesting is that the Ma Ying-jeou administration rejected this application three times.
Why?
Because they were concerned about the real purpose of the investment and the potential for Taiwanese companies to be taken over.
So they were being cautious.
Right.
But then Wang Guochong claims that after the DPP came into power, the investment went through. Yeah.
And he says the National Development Fund even contributed 1.5 billion NT of their own money.
Wow.
So they were actively supporting this investment.
It seems that way.
And he claims that this led to speculative activity in the stock market and ultimately losses for Taiwanese investors.
Ouch.
So not only was there a potential conflict of interest, but it also hurt Taiwanese investors.
Right.
And to top it off, Chen Shih-tzu has purportedly fled the country.
So who's being held accountable?
That's the question Wang Guochong raises.
He wants to know what's happening with the DPP officials who were involved, including former Secretary General Hung Yau-fu and the current Secretary General, Kong Ming-hsin.
It sounds like he's implying that political connections might have shielded them from scrutiny.
It certainly seems that way.
It's a classic case of who you know, not what you know.
Right.
And it raises questions about fairness and accountability in the system.
OK.
So what's the next case he brings up?
The case of Scientist Logistics.
Scientist Logistics.
What's that?
So it was this profitable state-owned enterprise established to support Taiwan's high-tech industry.
OK.
And the shocking allegation here is that this company was sold to a firm controlled by what the DPP themselves have called red capital.
Red capital meaning?
Meaning capital from or closely affiliated with China.
Whoa.
That's a pretty big deal.
It is, especially given the current tensions between Taiwan and China.
Yeah, it seems to contradict their whole resist China stance.
Exactly.
And he claims that this share transfer was orchestrated within the DPP's own headquarters with then Secretary General Hung Yau-fu overseeing it.
So again, this blurring of lines between party and state.
Right.
And he mentions that this has been legally confirmed.
So it's not just hearsay.
No.
It's a matter of public record.
And he points out that the DPP was initially defensive about this and then went silent.
Which doesn't look good, does it?
No.
Kind of suggests they know they messed up.
OK.
So who else is on Hung Yau-fu's list?
Well, next up is the Taiyan Green Energy case.
Taiyan Green Energy?
Yeah.
So this involved the appointment of Chen Xiyu, a close associate of Chen Xu, as the chair of Taiyan Green Energy back in 2017.
Right when the government was really pushing green energy.
Exactly.
And the accusation is that this guy Chen Xiyu used his insider knowledge to set up a private company that benefited from deals secured under Taiyan Green Energy.
So basically using his position for personal gain.
Right.
And the alleged loss to taxpayers is over $860 million NT.
Wow.
And who benefited?
Wang Guochang claims it was individuals affiliated with the DPP.
So yet another example of potential corruption.
It does seem that way.
These examples are really painting a picture, aren't they?
And before we move on to even more, I mean, what do you think all of this suggests about Taiwan's oversight mechanisms?
Well, I think it raises some serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest and this blurring of lines between party interests and public resources.
Right.
It's like the rules don't apply when you're in power.
Yeah.
And it makes you wonder how things are done differently in more established democracies.
Exactly.
Because you have to imagine that allegations like these would cause a much bigger stir in places like the U.S. or the U.K.
Absolutely.
So let's get back to the transcript.
What's the next case Wang Guochang brings up? The Lixing Optoelectronics case.
Lixing Optoelectronics.
Right.
This one concerns the establishment of a solar power plant in Kigutainan.
Solar power plant.
Yeah.
And he argues that the area was completely unsuitable for this kind of development.
Environmentally unsuitable.
Yeah.
And the main allegation here is that Tainan Mayor Wang Weijie and a central government official Wang Meihua colluded to push this project through despite potential legal issues.
And why would they do that?
Well, he claims the owner of Lixing Optoelectronics has ties to the DPP's hawkish faction.
And that he gained $9.1 billion NT illegally from this project. $9.1 billion?
That's an insane amount of money.
It is.
And this really reinforces the concerns about conflicts of interest and the need for stronger checks and balances.
Absolutely.
Because if these allegations are true, it means that people are potentially making a fortune off of projects that are harmful to the environment and possibly even illegal.
Right.
And while prosecutors have filed charges in this case, they're reportedly against a lower level official.
While the higher ups get off scot-free.
Exactly.
Which raises questions about whether there's a reluctance to go after those with real political power.
It's a classic case of the little guy taking the fall.
And it undermines public trust in the justice system.
Okay.
What else does Huang Guocheng talk about?
Well, there's the Panmengan case.
So this one involves a solar power plant linked to Panmengan that was basically on the verge of bankruptcy.
Okay.
And the government gave them a subsidy of $3 billion NT. $3 billion?
Why would they do that if the company was already failing?
Well, that's the thing.
Experts had raised concerns about the company's financial viability before the subsidy was even given.
Just so they ignored expert advice.
It seems that way.
And to make matters worse, even after this massive injection of public funds, the company continued to lose money.
How much?
Over $10 billion NT.
Wow.
So it was a complete waste of taxpayer money.
And it raises serious questions about the due diligence and oversight involved in approving such a large subsidy.
You have to wonder if political connections played a role.
It's certainly a possibility.
So who else does Huang Guocheng mention?
Lastly, there's the case of Wu Naijian.
Wu Naijian?
Yeah, this is a guy that even Lai Ching-teh distanced himself from because of earlier corruption allegations.
So he's a bit of a controversial figure?
He is.
And the accusation now is that he owes Taiwan over $100 million NT. $100 million.
But he claims to be poor.
While living the high life.
Exactly.
Huang Guocheng points out that he's been seen at these fancy establishments with minimum charges of $60,000 NT.
So he's living large while claiming to be broke.
Right.
And this is used to highlight the broader issue of corruption within the DPP and the difficulty in holding politically connected individuals accountable.
It's a classic case of one rule for them and another for everyone else.
Right.
And this leads into the issue of political protection.
Meaning?
He mentions a case where a 30-year prison sentence was handed down for related offenses.
Okay.
But the people responsible, particularly those with DPP connections, haven't been held accountable.
So they're getting away with it because of their political ties.
That's the implication.
And this goes to the heart of the rule of law.
If people believe that political connections can shield them from justice, it erodes trust in the entire system.
It's a fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law.
And if that's not the case, then the system is broken.
Exactly.
So how does Huang Guocheng wrap things up?
Well, he ends his speech with a call to action.
What does he want people to do?
He urges citizens to stand up against what he calls the DPP's deception and intimidation tactics and to support holding the ruling party accountable.
So he's calling for greater public engagement and oversight?
Exactly.
And he reminds everyone that the DPP has not treated the people as the true bosses of the Which ties back to the rally's title, People Should Be the Masters.
Right.
And he also addresses the accusation that anyone who criticizes the DPP is pro-China.
Which is a pretty common tactic to silence dissent.
He's essentially saying that legitimate concerns about government conduct shouldn't be dismissed with labels.
Right.
Because labeling someone as pro-China shuts down any real debate.
Exactly.
So it's a way of avoiding accountability.
Now, you, our listener, were particularly interested in how similar situations might be handled in Western democracies.
Right.
Like what would happen if these allegations were made in the U.S. or the U.K. or Germany?
Exactly.
Because you were expressing disbelief that these claims can seemingly go unaddressed here in Taiwan.
Yeah.
I mean, it just feels different there, doesn't it?
So let's talk about that for a minute.
How do you think countries like the U.K., Germany, the U.S. or Canada might respond to allegations like these?
Well, I think the first thing you'd see is a much more aggressive media response.
Right.
You'd have journalists digging into every detail.
Exactly.
And not just the usual suspects.
I mean, you'd have investigative reporters from all sorts of outlets all over this.
And parliamentary committees would probably launch their own inquiries demanding testimony and documents.
Right.
And you'd have independent government auditing agencies going through the financial records with a fine-tooth comb.
And all of this would be happening under intense public scrutiny.
Exactly.
It would be front-page news for weeks, if not months.
And the public would be demanding answers and accountability from their elected officials.
Absolutely.
And the pressure would be immense.
Right.
And on top of all that, you'd probably see legal investigations by independent law enforcement agencies.
Free from any political interference. And if they found evidence of wrongdoing, there would be serious legal consequences.
Regardless of anyone's political affiliation.
Right.
Because the rule of law applies to everyone.
Exactly.
Law one is above the law.
And this is where the role of a strong and independent opposition party becomes really crucial.
Because they're the ones who are constantly pushing for answers and holding the government accountable. They act as a check on the power of the ruling party.
And that's essential for a healthy democracy.
So to wrap things up this deep dive into Huang Guosheng's rally transcript really highlights some serious allegations of financial mismanagement, potential corruption, and a lack of accountability within the DPP administration.
It does raise questions about the effectiveness of democratic oversight in Taiwan.
And it makes you wonder how things might be different if there were stronger mechanisms for accountability and a more robust opposition.
It certainly does.
So as you continue to think about these issues, it's worth asking yourself what role you believe an informed and engaged citizenry plays in ensuring that Taiwan's democratic principles are upheld and that those in power are held accountable for their actions.
Food for thought for sure.
Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.
Thank you.