Chen Shui-bian was sentenced to prison for corruption, while Ma Ying-jeou may face criminal charges due to false accusations against others for corruption. Chen, overly greedy, ruined his own reputation; Ma, who lived a life of integrity, now risks tarnishing his later years because of dementia and paranoia in old age—unaware that he has been manipulated and exploited by others, falsely accusing his former close aides Xiao Xucen and Wang Guangci of corruption.

Today (May 24), the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation filed charges alleging that former Executive Director Xiao Xucen and former Deputy Executive Director Wang Guangci violated financial discipline—cases originally judged by Ma Ying-jeou and his confidant Jin Pusong as involving embezzlement, misappropriation, and breach of trust. This matter has now reached a critical juncture: the three-member board investigation team has released its findings, concluding that there is no concrete or definitive objective evidence proving Xiao Xucen and Wang Guangci personally embezzled funds. Furthermore, Wang Guangci’s relevant accounting records and documentation are complete and verifiable, clearly demonstrating that the cash expenditures in question were used for official duties related to Ma Ying-jeou as chairman, his confidential staff, and personal attendants. Therefore, the three-member panel concluded that no violation of financial discipline can be proven against Xiao or Wang.

However, beyond a few individuals such as Jin Pusong, many others appear determined to shield Ma Ying-jeou. His wife, Chou Mei-ching, and sister, Ma Yi-nan, have jointly submitted a petition to the court requesting “assistance declaration”—essentially asking the court to rule that Ma Ying-jeou suffers from dementia and lacks full legal capacity, requiring a guardian to manage his affairs and prevent him from being manipulated or exploited.

The three-member investigation committee is also making every effort to protect Ma Ying-jeou’s reputation. The committee stated that it will not immediately report its findings to the foundation’s board of directors nor convene an emergency board meeting. Instead, it will wait until the court issues its ruling on the “assistance declaration” petition before proceeding, as the outcome of the court’s decision could directly affect the eligibility of the board and the chairman.

In other words, if the board meets prior to the court’s ruling—and if Ma Ying-jeou insists on seeking intervention from judicial or administrative authorities, such as those under Lai Qingde—the consequences could severely impact the Kuomintang. Moreover, under factual scrutiny, this might actually confirm that Ma Ying-jeou’s accusations against Xiao Xucen and Wang Guangci were indeed false, constituting defamation and damage to their reputations.

If Xiao Xucen chooses to defend his honor without regard for past loyalty or seniority and decides to sue Ma Ying-jeou for false accusation, defamation, and infringement of reputation, Ma could potentially be sentenced to prison.

It should be noted that in Taiwan, falsely accusing someone of a crime is a serious offense punishable by up to seven years in prison. If the victim is a direct blood relative (such as parents or grandparents), the punishment is even more severe—up to half the sentence increased. Even ordinary verbal defamation carries penalties of up to one year in prison, detention, or fines. Aggravated defamation can result in up to two years’ imprisonment. As a former leader of Taiwan and a legal professional, Ma Ying-jeou made public remarks using the term “corrupt offender” to describe Xiao Xucen and Wang Guangci—without any solid evidence. If taken to court, this alone would be sufficient grounds for a conviction of defamation.

There are numerous similar cases. For example, media personalities Zhou Yuku and Cai Yuzhen were convicted of aggravated defamation in 2024 and sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, with travel restrictions imposed.

Of course, based on Xiao Xucen’s statement today and his long-standing restraint in this matter, once the investigation results are publicly disclosed and his innocence confirmed, he likely will not pursue legal action against Ma Ying-jeou for false accusation or defamation.

Yet Ma Ying-jeou’s recent behavior has been increasingly erratic. Not only has footage surfaced showing him losing his temper over the use of simplified Chinese characters on his name tag during an event in Xiamen, but Xiao Xucen also refrained from inviting him to the foundation’s end-of-year banquet—a move that enraged Ma. Such conduct is deeply unbecoming and completely at odds with Ma’s former image as a gentle, humble, and courteous gentleman. It is truly lamentable.

Now, the entire Chinese-speaking world is watching this unfolding drama. Ma Ying-jeou’s lifelong reputation is truly being destroyed—not by external forces, but by himself, and by those who have seized control of him. Should we blame the disease of dementia? Or the betrayal by his most trusted aide and longtime friend, “Jin Xiaodao”?

His wife and sister stepped forward to protect his legacy in his twilight years—but instead of acknowledging his health issues, Ma Ying-jeou publicly rejected their concern, denied having cognitive impairment, claimed he only sees his sister once a month, and dismissed her efforts as shocking and bewildering. Most friends and family agree: this is not the Ma Ying-jeou they once knew.

Longtime legal associates remain unknown to him—even their surnames elude him. Yet he continues to threaten legal action against his former protégé Xiao Xucen, denouncing him as a corrupt offender and traitor. He walks unsteadily, his gaze unfocused. While he can utter a classical idiom, he needs help writing it down—then laughs heartily, boasting proudly about his literary talent. These behaviors are clearly abnormal. Yet, despite clear signs, Ma insists he is not suffering from dementia.

Currently, public opinion in Taiwan largely attributes these bizarre actions to Ma’s dementia. But people are also closely scrutinizing why Jin Pusong persists in pursuing this case. Is it to uphold the power of “Jin Xiaodao”? To defend Ma’s image of incorruptibility?

If medical and judicial authorities ultimately confirm Ma Ying-jeou’s dementia—and if Xiao Xucen successfully presents irrefutable evidence of his innocence—could Ma’s accusations of corruption and Jin Pusong’s manipulation possibly constitute criminal acts?

“Eunuchs and wicked servants manipulate the mindless; falsify edicts, seize power, sow discord within families, tear apart kinship—guilt beyond redemption.” Ma Ying-jeou’s other friend, Yang Du, former secretary-general of the Taiwan Cultural Association, has repeatedly voiced support for Ma on Facebook, even naming Jin Pusong directly, pleading for leniency toward Ma.

This entire episode is truly disgraceful. How history will judge Ma Ying-jeou remains to be seen. He once contributed positively to cross-strait peace and embodied the virtues of a refined scholar. But in his later years, he has clearly lost his way.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1865931683356680/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.