A few hours short of a whole week after the Accounting Act (會計法) was amended by the legislature, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) apologized for errors in the legislation. This was a rare admission of a misstep from Ma and his administration.
But the apology created some confusion coming as it did a day after Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) rejected a request for the Cabinet to veto the measure, which came from Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌). That day, an Executive Yuan spokesperson said Jiang had reiterated the Cabinet had no plan to veto the bill.
What a difference a day makes.
The abrupt about-face begs the question as to just what triggered it. It comes after a week-long display of passing the buck between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the DPP, lawmakers and the Executive Yuan, all eager to distance themselves from what appeared to be a stunning combination of oversight and political conniving.
Ostensibly the amendment aimed to exempt several hundred professors from having their government research grants audited, after the discovery of accounting errors that left them open to civil, administrative and criminal liability. Given the conflicting rules and timeframes governing such grants, the idea seemed to be a good one.
However, the proposal was then expanded to cover elected officials who had misused their special allowances — though former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was pointedly not included. Grouping such disparate groups together and claiming their mistakes were equal was quite a stretch. It looked more like a case of combining an idea popular with the public with one to aid political parties ahead of next year’s seven-in-one local elections. It is hard to equate buying equipment for research teams with officials dipping into public money for entertainment.
Such was the rush to get the amendment passed before the legislature adjourned, neither the Executive Yuan, which had vetted the proposal, nor lawmakers noticed that the word “teaching [faculty]” was missing, which meant academics remained open to prosecution.
It appeared as if the only winner would be former Non-Partisan Solidarity Union legislator and Taichung County Council speaker Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), who began a three-and-a-half-year prison term in February for using almost NT$20 million (US$668,500) to visit hostess bars and KTVs when he was council speaker more than a decade ago.
It is clear why the KMT is eager to get Yen out of jail. Though he was an independent lawmaker, his son, Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆), ran in and won January’s by-election to replace him as a KMT candidate. The Ministry of Economic Affairs had also picked Yen in 2010 to be one of its “ambassadors” to promote the yet-to-be-signed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. Despite his years of legal woes, he remains a powerful force in Greater Taichung politics, and could help the KMT next year.
The other major problem with the amendment was that its passage was a deal worked out by just a handful of lawmakers — Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), Vice Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) and other senior members of the KMT, DPP, Taiwan Solidarity Union and People First Party caucuses. It was then rushed through a vote.
Unfortunately, it has become the norm in recent years for political grandstanding to delay passage of most bills before the legislature. Consequently, during the last few days of each session, lawmakers are in a frenzied rush to pass a handful of amendments. A “special” session (or two) is then held in the summer to pass a few more bills.
Shoddy writing, questionable politicking and rushed legislation do disservice to voters and the nation. Ma apologized yesterday and Su on Thursday, but it is unlikely those expressions of remorse will change the way lawmaking is done in this nation.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS