For anyone who cherishes Taiwan’s democratic achievements, it was certainly disturbing to see six government officials accompanying Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) on his recent visit to China for the 10th Cross-Strait Economic and Cultural Forum in Shanghai — a sight that has left many shaking their heads and wondering whether the nation’s state apparatus has been manipulated for partisan gain.
The six officials were from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture and the Council of Agriculture.
MAC Minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言) defended their visit by saying the six did not travel at taxpayers’ expense, but had their expenses subsidized by a KMT think tank. However, the sheer notion of government officials attending the annual KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forum — a party-to-party mechanism that primarily serves as a channel of dialogue between the leaders of the two parties — is extremely inappropriate and appears to violate administrative neutrality.
Article 8 of the Public Servants’ Administrative Neutrality Act (公務人員行政中立法) clearly stipulates that public servants must not use powers, opportunities or methods granted by their office to aid or benefit political parties or other political groups of political candidates, nor accede to their requests, accept bribes in any form or donate in their interests.
The Ministry of the Interior’s Permit Regulations Governing the Entry into the Mainland Area by Civil Servants and other Personnel with Special Identities in the Taiwan Area (公務員及特定身分人員進入大陸地區注意事項) also prohibits civil servants from entering China on non-official matters and carrying out activities related to their offices.
It is beyond belief that Chu chose to disregard the law by bringing these officials — what the KMT called “the party’s specially invited experts” — to the forum, where issues pertaining to Taiwan’s entry to Beijing’s proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership were discussed.
Blurring the line between state and party suggests not only an abuse of administrative power and possibly an exploitation of administrative resources for partisan gains, but also Chu’s arrogance as the party chairman of the nation’s ruling party.
More importantly, the incident strongly suggests that Chu, despite being dubbed one of the KMT’s most promising stars, is still clinging to the dated concept that “the party leads the state” and considers the nation’s civil servants to belong to the KMT.
So much for President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) repeated lectures that government officials need to heed public perception and ensure neutrality between administrative and party affairs.
The job description of civil servant calls for them to serve the public, not a specific politician or a particular party.
In view of the alleged abuse of the nation’s administrative apparatus and the brazen breach of administrative neutrality by members of his Cabinet, Premier Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) owes the public an explanation.
With the campaign season for next year’s presidential election approaching, the administration’s neutrality will become increasingly pertinent and the public must keep a close eye on Ma’s government to keep it in check.
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS