News this week that the presidential “state affairs fund” may increase by a third next year likely raised a few eyebrows, and for a number of reasons.
The announcement flew in the face of public opinion. It also ignored the debate over the fund’s lack of transparency and the risk of abuse resulting from ambiguous regulation and inadequate oversight. Furthermore, the Presidential Office’s motivation for boosting the fund — to help disadvantaged groups — seemed contrived and illogical.
Long after the controversy erupted over the presidential state affairs fund and the special allowances that come with senior government positions, the hope of reform has dwindled. Not surprisingly, Taiwan’s politicians are uninterested in changing a comfortable system that has benefited them for decades.
To sober observers, however, it is clear that this reimbursement system, born under a dictatorship, is a relic within Taiwan’s democratic transformation.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) has confirmed a report that it is seeking legislative approval to increase the fund from NT$30 million (US$913,000) to NT$40 million. The fund was NT$50 million for 24 years until 2007, when it was slashed to NT$30 million amid corruption allegations against then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his family.
The Presidential Office’s statement — that the funds were needed to support marginalized groups not covered by current government programs — was ambiguous. It is not clear what Ma intends to spend the money on, while gaps in the government’s welfare net should be addressed by revamping whatever programs the office was referring to.
As it stands, the public has little reason to believe that misuse of these funds and questionable accounting practices have changed in the past few years. Short of making the system transparent — President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had proposed posting a weekly online report detailing the presidential fund’s use — taxpayers can only hope that a fear of being exposed will keep officials in check. But the public may be forgiven if they do not have much faith in the consciences of officials as agents of restraint.
Unfortunately, Ma’s proposal for an online report, made to Transparency International, has not materialized. Implementing the idea could be a first push toward reform, backing calls for better legislation and stricter oversight of other officials’ special funds.
The Presidential Office’s announcement came just one day before news that three former minor secretaries to Ma during his terms as Taipei mayor had been granted deferred prosecution over shady accounting. Wu Li-ju (吳麗洳), Liu Jin-jung (劉靜蓉) and Hsu Yu-mei (徐玉美) have admitted to forging paperwork detailing non-existent employee bonuses to account for fund reimbursements and have said the practice was nothing new. They will not be indicted in the next three years, however, and could even be spared prosecution after that.
Ma’s secretary, Yu Wen (余文), who was sentenced to 12 months in prison, was not as fortunate.
Ma was indicted in the same case as Yu. Although he conceded to wiring millions of NT dollars from his mayoral fund directly into family accounts, the court said he didn’t break the law. The question is whether the public approves of a system that allows officials to wire public funds into personal bank accounts.
The decision two years ago to cut back the state affairs fund was a welcome gesture, though hardly sufficient to quell concerns about the fund. To justify an increase now, the Presidential Office will not only have to make a better case for why the money is needed, it will have to introduce safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent in the public interest.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did
RSS