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.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS