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.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS