Funds mudfight offers opportunities

Politicians from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps have begun a "mudfight" by filing criminal lawsuits against numerous former and current government officials over their use of special allowance funds. All civil servants who now have or have had access to such funds in the past fear that they will be the next to be targeted.

The strange thing is that these accusations and lawsuits are not aimed at rooting out corrupt officials. Rather, the accusers make such claims to cover up their own corrupt practices: if so many officials are misusing the funds, then the system is responsible, not the individuals.

Taxpayers and voters must now decide how to resolve this issue. I am optimistic that this kind of mudfight could serve as a stimulant for Taiwanese to reflect on existing political habits and offer an opportunity to develop a new civic culture.

First, the mudfights will encourage citizens to examine politicians with a bit of healthy cynicism. Taiwan's democratization has been unfolding for several years now, but a good number of people still mistakenly believe in political "saints" who can do no wrong.

In the mudfight currently before us, every politician has become a suspect.

Regardless of their actual guilt, they will be scrutinized by the public and possibly by the judicial system. In the future, voters will be less likely to believe politicians when they casually say "trust me."

Democratic politics must be based on a healthy distrust of those in power rather than adoration. The special allowance funds uproar may usher in a new era when citizens question every politician rather than just those from the opposite camp.

Second, the mudfight offers an opportunity for deep reflection about the nation's political culture, which does not differentiate between a politician's public and private life.

Government officials use special allowance funds, which are provided by taxpayers, to buy wedding and funeral gifts, hold banquets and hand out special rewards. Voters have a tendency to think of their "public representatives" as "private representatives," allowing politicians to use public funds to consolidate their own political position.

The mixing of public and private affairs is also reflected in the design of many special allowance funds, which stipulate that half of the allowance can be used without requiring expense receipts. This practice turns the funds -- regardless of whether they are labeled as "salary," "expenses" or "compensation" -- into personal income because there is no way to verify their use.

The use of public resources in such a shortsighted and selfish manner should not be tolerated. By halting the practice of not requiring receipts for reimbursement from special allowance funds, the problem of politicians using public resources for private advantage would be stopped.

If these funds are truly intended for officials to spend on public affairs, then reimbursements should be made only when proper receipts are submitted.

The mudfight also gives supporters of both the pan-blue and pan-green camps an opportunity for further self reflection.

Voters should ask themselves whether they have used the same standard to examine politicians.

The judicial system does not encourage public litigation. But with the legal challenges filed over special allowance funds, the public have found a way to monitor politicians through the judiciary.

It is possible that most of those accused have not violated any laws, but given the current system, it is only through criminal investigations that the public will be able to clarify what politicians are actually doing.

The main point of these lawsuits is not whether the accused are guilty, but rather that the process is challenging existing political structures. This provides an outstanding opportunity to reflect on Taiwan's civil culture.

Bruce Liao is an assistant professor of law at Soochow University and an adviser to the Taipei City Government's Human Rights Protection Committee.

Translated by Lin Ya-ti