The Taipei Times reported recently that in 1999 I used my special allowance fund in adopting a stray dog and that I later reimbursed the fund for those fees ("Mayor's spending habits attacked by city councilors," Sept. 29, page 3).
The fact of the matter is that I was participating in an event on Aug. 1, 1999, jointly organized by the Council of Agriculture and the Taipei City Government, to promote the adoption of stray dogs, which then numbered around 55,000 in Taipei.
The Animal Disease Control Institute (ADCI) of the city government's Department of Economic Development arranged for Council of Agriculture Chairman Peng Chao-kuei (
Peng and I both signed up for the adoption, but the ADCI took the two puppies back for observation first, because stray dogs normally carry a variety of diseases.
Peng's adopted dog died 10 days later; mine had a high fever and other serious health problems and had to be hospitalized for 10 days.
On Sept. 2, 1999, my wife went to the ADCI to bring our dog home. When she asked to pay the bill, which was NT$9,900, ADCI officials told her that they would ask the mayor's office to take care of the expenses that were incurred by implementing an official policy.
The mayor's office in turn asked the accounting office whether the special allowance could be used. The response was affirmative, because the event was an official one organized by the city government and an agency of the central government. But I was not consulted and remained until recently under the impression that the bill had been paid by my wife.
Although the use of the special allowance was perfectly legal and legitimate, my wife and I decided to give NT$9,900 to the Department of Accounting and Statistics because we believed from the start that we should pay for the adoption of the dog. Because the spending of the NT$9,900 from the special allowance was audited and approved six years ago, there cannot be any reimbursement, and so our NT$9,900 will go toward the budget for the year 2006.
I am writing to request that, when you next refer to this case, please make sure to state that my use of the special allowance before the adopted dog was brought home was for official business and was both legal and legitimate and that I paid for all the expenses of my dog afterwards, and that I nevertheless repaid the city seven years later.
Thank you.
Ma Ying-jeou
Taipei mayor
(Editor's note: Our initial story ("Ma admits to dog handling mistake," Sept. 24, page 1) on this issue included Mayor Ma's explanation of how he acquired the dog and how he repaid the city government.)
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS