Minister of Culture Hung Meng-chi (洪孟啟) offering his resignation yesterday amid media reports accusing the Ministry of Culture of using the national coffers to “subsidize” the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) comes as a timely reminder that, with next year’s presidential and legislative elections less than 110 days away, it is increasingly important for the public to keep a close eye on the government to prevent it from squandering taxpayers’ money on partisan interests.
While Hung has denied the accusation, telling a news conference yesterday that the proposal to allot NT$2.5 million (US$75,465) to each KMT lawmaker serving on the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee to ensure the passage of the ministry’s budget had been immediately rejected on the grounds of the principle of administrative neutrality.
However, the Chinese-language Next Magazine, which exposed the alleged irregularities within the ministry, said Hung was lying.
In view of the alleged breach of administrative neutrality by members of his Cabinet, Premier Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) certainly owes the public an explanation; it is therefore dumbfounding that Mao has instead asked Hung to stay put and did not accept his resignation.
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 — or could it be that even Ma’s own Cabinet members are used to merely paying Ma lip service?
After all, Ma’s own political track record suggests that he himself has not been setting a good example of drawing a clear line between state and party and ensuring administrative neutrality.
Some might still recall that Ma, shortly after assuming the presidency in 2008, used the state affairs fund to purchase 8,400 boxes of moon cakes from disadvantaged fruit farmers for the Mid-Autumn Festival to give to the underprivileged. While that in itself was a nice gesture, Ma allegedly used the national coffers for partisan gain by having the moon cakes delivered to the underprivileged via the KMT’s local chapters.
Some might also recall that there were media reports in the run-up to Ma’s re-election in 2012 accusing Ma of committing breaches of administrative neutrality by having his re-election campaign office instruct Cabinet-level ministries to encourage their employees to take part in Ma’s re-election rallies.
Not to mention that there have also been reports in the past alleging that under Ma, the nation’s intelligence agencies have conducted surveillance on opposition presidential candidates.
And these are only a few examples in a long litany of transgressions.
Hung’s case is no small matter, as the Anti--Corruption Act (貪汙治罪條例) clearly prohibits officials from engaging in acts that profit an individual, either directly or indirectly, not to mention that the Civil Service Administrative Neutrality Act (公務人員行政中立法) also clearly stipulates that civil servants and administrative officials have to remain politically impartial.
Mao’s easy dismissal of the Hung case shows disregard for the law, is an abuse of administrative power and is disturbing to the many who cherish the nation’s democratic achievements as the nation struggles to throw off its one-party state past.
Civil servants need to bear in mind that they are on the taxpayers’ payroll and their job description calls for them to serve the people, not a specific politician or a particular party.
For any government official to blur the line between state and party suggests not only an abuse of administrative power and possible exploitation of administrative resources for partisan gain, but also an arrogant act that treats the public with contempt and plays them for fools.
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