It was merely 20 years ago that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lifted martial law in Taiwan. Today, Taiwan has blossomed into a vibrant democracy.
Yet on Sept. 21, Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), former Democratic Progressive Party chairman Yu Shyi-kun and National Security Council Secretary-General Mark Chen (陳唐山) were indicted on charges of corruption and forgery. They stand accused of misusing special discretionary funds that are allotted to thousands of top public leaders and civil servants.
It may appear to many observers that Taiwan remains a haven for unscrupulous officials rather than perspicacious leaders.
However, the decision to indict these leaders was political, as opposed to legal. Poor regulations dictating the use of special discretionary funds, as well as a lack of oversight, are to blame for the controversy.
NO STANDARD
There is no objective standard as to what constitutes acceptable use of special discretionary funds; the laws governing their dispersal are vague and subsequently invite widely diverging interpretations.
Many of the indictments have stemmed from the fact that officials often treat the funds as personal income and not public money, as was allegedly the case with KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
These factors point to a severe institutional problem, a malady that Taiwanese leaders must cure to further consolidate their young democracy.
Civil servant misuse of special discretionary funds is normally considered an administrative infraction. The Taiwanese institution holding jurisdiction over such infractions is the Control Yuan, the government oversight agency.
However, what should remain an essential watchdog agency has lain dormant for more than two years.
The KMT-controlled legislature has refused to place President Chen Shui-bian's (
Logically, they should concentrate their initial efforts on investigating accountants responsible for handling discretionary funds who must justify to what ends they approved their use. If, after further examination, all evidence points toward particular officials, then move forward from there.
DEDICATED
The vast majority of officials are dedicated, loyal public servants who struggled to unshackle Taiwan from dictatorial rule to create a free, democratic society. Lu, Yu and Chen are among these notable leaders, the vice president in particular.
Taiwan's first modern feminist -- and the living embodiment of democratic reforms -- has built her entire career on clean politics. Exploiting systemic flaws to engage in politically motivated vendettas is both shameful and detrimental to the country.
Lu herself urged the world to recognize that "Taiwan is not just an island. It has 23 million well-educated people with a well-developed sense of democracy. Don't underestimate their collective strength."
Taiwan's march toward freedom has covered much ground in the past 20 years.
Its devotion to democracy, peace and prosperity has made a profound impression on people all over the globe.
It is therefore incumbent upon Taiwanese leaders to correct the institutional flaws that have created unnecessary upheaval and continue to make the world marvel at its democratic achievements.
Julia Famularo is a Fulbright scholar researching Taiwanese elections and a researcher at DPP headquarters.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past