On July 14, former Government Information Office (GIO) official Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), who was removed from his post in 2009 after writing political commentary on Web sites that referred to Taiwanese as “descendants of Japanese pirates,” “rednecks” and “country bumpkins,” met the legal age necessary for retirement from the Taiwan Provincial Government, where he was employed as foreign affairs secretary in February.
As a result, Kuo is set to collect a monthly pension of NT$60,000 (US$2,000) funded by taxes paid by the rednecks and country bumpkins he had so much to say about in 2009.
However, in response to this, the Ministry of Civil Service said that Kuo’s retirement would not affect ongoing investigations into his employment and that he would not receive his monthly pension before the ministry formally appraises his case. The ministry also said that if the Taiwan Provincial Government confirms that Kuo was legally employed, he would be paid back all the pension payments he is entitled to.
However, the procedures used by the Taiwan Provincial Government when employing Kuo were illegal. Putting aside the question of whether Minister Without Portfolio Lin Jung-tzer (林政則), who also oversees the Taiwan Provincial Government and who oversaw Kuo’s appointment, is guilty of influence peddling in hiring Kuo — just looking at how the Taiwan Provincial Government acted against the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) in its hiring of Kuo — it is obvious that steps can be taken to stop Kuo from receiving his pension and to recoup the salary Kuo received as a civil servant in the Taiwan Provincial Government.
Article 7.1 of the act, which pertains to the principles that administrative acts should follow, says: “The method adopted must be helpful to the achievement of the objectives thereof.”
The employment of officials by governmental organizations is a form of “administrative act.” The administrative procedures used in employing officials by government organizations — as well as letting officials retain their position without pay — should take into account whether such procedures are beneficial to furthering employment within government organizations.
Given this, the Taiwan Provincial Government’s hiring of Kuo, who was almost at retirement age when he was hired, was of no help in meeting this administrative goal and is therefore in breach of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Even worse, an investigation carried out by members of the Control Yuan showed that the provisions for recruitment by the Taiwan Provincial Government, which are equivalent to an administrative order, have clear regulations that require an interview to be held when employing somebody. However, when hiring Kuo, the Taiwan Provincial Government did not carry out any interview. Therefore, in terms of procedure, Kuo’s employment had serious defects that ran in contradiction to an administrative order.
In light of this, Kuo’s employment by the Taiwan Provincial Government meets the criteria of Article 111 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which relates to “an administrative disposition with other material and apparent defects,” and as such, Kuo’s employment should be viewed as invalid.
In simple terms, given that Kuo’s hiring by the Taiwan Provincial Government was invalid from start to finish, the national government should not allow him to collect any monthly pension lest it too becomes guilty of influence peddling.
Lastly, the salary Kuo received while working illegally should be retrieved in accordance with the law to protect the rights and interests of taxpayers.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Drew Cameron
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS