With the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) taking office on Friday next week, it is worth remembering that the party’s biggest promise to the electorate was to bring about social justice.
On Friday last week, the legislature reviewed a bill to amend the Act on the Recusal of Public Servants Due to Conflict of Interest (公職人員利益衝突迴避法), which would ban public servants from serving in key positions at non-profit organizations and set limitations on their spouses, as well as first and second-degree relatives.
The proposal, which aims to revise multiple articles in the act, has drawn criticism from several legislators for being too strict.
It has been approved by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and passed on to newly elected legislators for review.
The DPP has always said that it is the party most capable of safeguarding social justice.
However, when its own interests come under attack, the party holds back on justice.
During the early years of the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese government was the richest in the world, but government officials were still poorly paid.
At the time, anyone who wanted to serve as an official and also wanted to be rich was likely to become a corrupt official.
A typical example was Heshen (和珅), who started out as an honest officer, but turned corrupt as he gained power, eventually becoming the most notoriously corrupt official in Chinese history.
Unlike Chinese officials during the Qing Dynasty, today’s government officials are envied for their income and benefits, with those directly appointed by the president being especially well-paid.
The sizeable incomes should be enough to ease their thirst for money and help the government find talented people with integrity.
An example of such an official is Hu Shih (胡適), who often paid expenses that were hard to categorize out of his own pocket when he served as ambassador to the US. Free from greed, he never took advantage of his position and remained a poor, law-abiding official throughout his life.
Nowadays, many officials are corrupt, despite their high incomes, and if any of them has tens of billions of New Taiwan dollars in their bank account, they have acquired it through corrupt dealings, unless, of course, they have their own printing press.
The biggest problem in politics is the common expectation that official positions should lead to wealth. Even officials who are not corrupt often think they can use their privileges to become wealthy.
The most widely adopted means to do so is to join a public or private enterprise after leaving the political stage, where their political connections are useful in helping them to become rich.
The most astonishing thing about this scenario is that if these people return to politics, they are often welcomed with open arms, and praised as being selfless and for giving up high-paying jobs to be a public servant.
However, the truth is that they have a good chance of making even more money if they return to work for the government. While they are not corrupt in the traditional sense, they build their wealth just as fast as the ones who are.
It is only reasonable to ask public servants, their spouses and close relatives to give up the opportunity to become rich. If they are unwilling to do so, there is always the option of not becoming a public servant at all.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and a member of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US