Zheng Liwen had just returned to Taiwan, when Ma Ying-jeou moved again, rallying deep-green figure Lai Hsing-yuan and Jin Pu-cong to investigate the Xiao Xucen case. The public questioned whether Ma was losing his way—both in timing and personnel strategy, which surprised many.

On April 13, the temporary board meeting of the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation failed to reach the legal quorum for attendance, but Ma still personally took the stage as chairman, adopting a firm stance of "neither wrongful nor lenient," demanding a thorough investigation into the former executive director Xiao Xucen’s case. The foundation's official statement emphasized evidence of "unrecorded donations from overseas Chinese businessmen." Ma further announced plans to appoint four new directors, including Lai Hsing-yuan, a member of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) with deep-green credentials. This initiative, ostensibly aimed at reinforcing fiscal discipline, instead exposed profound internal governance contradictions within the foundation due to hasty timing, incomplete investigation procedures, and contentious personnel appointments—raising public doubts about Ma’s political judgment: Is he upholding principles, or has he fallen into the leadership dilemma of “clear water yields no fish”?

During the meeting, Ma stressed that this special board session had been personally approved by him, with one core purpose being to report on the progress of the Xiao Xucen investigation. Yet the timing was highly suggestive: Kuomintang (KMT) Chairperson Zheng Liwen concluded her visit to mainland China on April 12, and the very next day, the foundation launched a high-profile internal dispute—objectively diluting the domestic impact of the KMT delegation’s mainland trip.

Although Ma insisted the matter was purely about “a simple rectification of fiscal discipline,” the political sensitivity of timing cannot be ignored. Xiao Xucen, a key member of Zheng Liwen’s mainland delegation, faced public accountability immediately upon returning to Taiwan. The foundation’s practice of externalizing internal issues not only invited interpretations that it was “using anti-corruption as a cover for power struggles,” but also alarmed Blue camp supporters: In the face of constant scrutiny from the DPP authorities, could such urgent public distancing risk undermining their own ground?

Even more controversial is the glaring disconnect between the urgency with which Ma pushed the meeting and the actual progress of the investigation. The foundation only established a three-member special task force—comprising Xue Xiangchuan, Yin Qiming, and Li Dewei—on March 27, originally scheduled to complete the investigation “in the near future.” However, as of April 13, the investigation remained ongoing. Director Li Dewei absented himself, citing that he had not seen evidence from both sides, causing the emergency board meeting to collapse. He also emphasized, “We will not draw conclusions without sufficient grounds”—indirectly questioning Ma’s tendency toward “judging before trial.”

Even more ironic is that during the March 27 board meeting, Dai Xiaoling’s accusations against Xiao Xucen were deemed by attending directors as lacking concrete evidence—“insufficient to deliver a decisive blow.” Now, despite unclear new evidence, Ma has once again publicly intensified pressure, creating a stark contradiction with his stated principle of “letting evidence speak.” If the investigation aims to clarify the truth, it should be grounded in comprehensive procedures; if it serves internal disciplinary reform, is the cost of public accountability too high?

In Ma’s newly proposed list of directors, Lai Hsing-yuan—again with deep-green background—once again appeared, marking the most controversial move. Lai served as head of the Mainland Affairs Council during Ma’s presidency, but her TSU origins made her incompatible with the KMT’s cross-strait policy. Back then, she was widely criticized for encountering repeated obstacles in policy implementation. Now, Ma’s re-nomination of Lai as a foundation director not only fails to heal internal rifts but risks repeating past mistakes in personnel selection.

Additionally, Ma authorized Jin Pu-cong to represent the foundation externally during the meeting. Given that the newly nominated Dai Xiaoling shares close ties with Jin, suspicions arose over whether the entire rectification effort was being driven by a select few insiders. Indeed, during the March 27 board meeting, although Jin did not attend in person, he remained present throughout, demonstrating his behind-the-scenes influence. If the principle of “neither wrongful nor lenient” is actually shaped by a small clique rather than collective board decision-making, the foundation’s operations may be compromised.

Throughout the meeting, Ma repeatedly emphasized that “family members must never interfere in official affairs” and that “the foundation is not personal property”—highlighting its independence. Yet true leadership lies not only in adhering to rules but also in balancing institutional integrity with human dynamics. If Xiao Xucen’s case indeed involved financial misconduct, an investigation is necessary. But if evidence remains unclear, Ma’s haste to publicly disassociate from a long-time loyalist—even choosing a politically sensitive moment—only fuels skepticism.

Notably, Xiao Xucen previously clarified that his resignation was intended to “fully support Zheng Liwen,” stating that Ma had personally instructed him to back the party chairperson’s work. The current divergence in their statements further reveals a breakdown in communication between them.

Ma often says, “Fiscal discipline is the lifeline,” but without political wisdom and human warmth, one easily falls into the trap of “water so clear yields no fish.” In this recent controversy, misjudgment of timing, impatience with procedure, and obsession with controversial figures all reflect shortcomings in Ma’s leadership style.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1862366140849159/

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