President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) constantly compares himself with his predecessor and there’s nothing he likes to do more than spout figures. In an attempt to demonstrate just how frugal he is, he has said before that since he resolved to save money in four areas — fuel usage, electricity, water and paper — four years ago, the Presidential Office has made annual savings of more than NT$7 million (US$233,600). It is not about how much it is, he says, it is about the message it gives out. “I am cutting down on spending public money,” he says.
Of course, frugality is a virtue and is certainly commendable. It is, though, the duty of government officials of all ranks to keep a rein on spending public money. And this is how it should be. It is just that, while Ma blathers on about how much he is saving on utility bills here and how many millions of NT dollars he is saving there, and how hugely significant all this is, somebody needs to remind him not to measure the office of Republic of China (ROC) president by Ma the man.
Someone of his stature should not be dwelling on mundane issues such as minor savings in the Presidential Office or Chunghsing Apartment (中興寓所), his official residence. As president of the nation, he should be focusing on major national policy and what is good for the country.
He seems more concerned, however, with comparing himself with former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on who was more thrifty with the public purse. Let us make that comparison, then.
First, Ma had been harping on about having the same bed for the past 30 years, wearing suits until they fall apart, getting his sports and formal shoes repaired time after time and never throwing out a perfectly good pair of swimming trunks.
Hold on, what does all that have to do with public funds?
Those are personal items that he should be paying out for anyway.
They should not come under the special allowance fund for government chiefs or the state affairs fund. The amount of public funds being saved from all this is precisely zero.
Second, it is true that Ma spends tens of thousands of dollars less than Chen did on utility bills at the Chunghsing Apartment residence every year. However, Ma uses the special presidential swimming pool every day and that amasses a substantial water and electricity bill.
Do we know how much more public funds he spends on this every year compared with Chen?
Third, is it not true that the presidential salary comes under public expenditure?
When Chen took office he had his own salary reduced by half. Ma said that he would cut his own salary if he failed to achieve his “6-3-3” goals of 6 percent annual economic growth, an annual per capita income of US$30,000 and unemployment of less than 3 percent in his first term.
He did not do that. It was another bounced check that he refused to honor. He did, however, help himself to a pay raise of NT$13,869 a month in July last year, which actually increased the relative spending of public finances on the presidential salary from NT$2.77 million a year under Chen to NT$2.94 million.
Is the State Affairs Fund not also paid for by the taxpayer? Ma has virtually spent the NT$40 million it sets aside each year. On this count, Chen spent NT$10 million less of public money every year than Ma. On health and medical expenses, Chen spent NT$14,000 a year; Ma has spent more than NT$500,000 a year. Again, Chen saved more public money than Ma, to the tune of NT$486,000.
Another way to measure how careful the two presidents were is by examining the budgets for public construction projects. When Chen was in office, Taiwan Power Co’s (Taipower) reserve capacity was kept at 16 percent. In the four years since Ma has taken office, this figure has jumped to above 20 percent. On this count, more than NT$40 billion worth of public money a year has been wasted relative to Chen’s time in office.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) originally budgeted over NT$500 billion for National Highway No. 3, but under Chen it was completed, ahead of schedule, for only NT$240 billion, representing a saving of more than NT$260 billion of taxpayers’ money. The KMT set aside NT$400 billion and NT$150 billion respectively for the Datan (大潭) power station and the Keelung River flood prevention project. Under Chen, these were completed at a cost of only NT$110 billion and NT$32 billion respectively, creating collective savings in excess of NT$400 billion.
Which of the major public construction projects started under Ma were completed in line with their budget?
Even worse, national debt rose more during Ma’s first term in office than it did in the eight years that Chen was in power.
If you want to know who saved the most money for the country, you need look no further than the figures.
However, figures are a bit of a touchy subject in Taiwan at the moment. International oil prices have fallen from the stratospheric heights reached in 2008, having decreased by over US$30 per barrel since that period. Also, the NT dollar is quite strong at the moment. And yet, under Ma’s “wise” leadership, domestic fuel prices keep rising, setting record highs. The average income for Taiwanese, in real terms, is back to the level it was 15 years ago. The price of daily necessities is skyrocketing and both the poverty gap and unemployment rate are increasing at an alarming rate. At the same time, the value of exports has fallen for five months in a row. The promised 4 percent economic growth rate had to be adjusted to a guaranteed 3 percent to a definite 2 percent and now stands at 1.66 percent. These figures do not paint a very pretty picture.
Is it wrong to use them to judge the achievements of Ma’s time in office?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95