The controversies surrounding Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
In light of the series of alleged scandals implicating leaders including Ma and President Chen Shui-bian (
To begin with, the rules and regulations regarding the use of these special-purpose funds are written ambiguously and riddled with loopholes.
One example is Ma's practice of directly wiring half of his NT$340,000 (US$10,327) monthly mayoral special allowance -- NT$170,000 -- into his personal bank account.
According to the Taipei City Government, this practice is not illegal or prohibited, and is thus perfectly acceptable.
Perhaps the city is right in stating that there are no explicit regulations or rules banning the practice. However, it is necessary to step back and examine the issue from the standpoint of the original purpose of the allowance.
The special allowance fund is supposed to be used for expenses incurred while performing mayoral duties. It is not intended to subsidize a mayor's wages. From a legal standpoint, once the money is wired into the Taipei mayor's account, it becomes his or her personal responsibility. No one else can make use of the fund without the mayor's approval.
Thus, even if Ma faithfully used the money for its intended purpose, because he has co-mingled the fund with his personal account, it is difficult to establish whether he was using his own money or the special fund to pay for his own expenses.
This explains why in many other countries, regulations often explicitly prohibit the co-mingling of public and personal funds.
Another issue centers on whether Ma should be able to keep the unspent portion of the special allowance fund, and again, there are no explicit regulations governing this practice.
However, it is almost unthinkable that this silence should be interpreted as allowing Ma -- or any other government official -- to pocket the left-over money, which is supposed to be spent for job-related purposes and not for personal use. It is truly puzzling why the existing regulations are silent on such important matters.
Finally, there is the alleged use by Ma's aides of "borrowed receipts" to submit reimbursement claims from the other half of his special allowance. If these allegations were substantiated, it would constitute a clear case of forgery.
The borrowed receipts reportedly came from a wide variety of sources, including members of Ma's office who apparently "contributed" their own receipts in a rather casual manner. This is comparable with the way in which receipts were collected and borrowed from a wide variety of sources to claim reimbursement from Chen's "state affairs fund," -- a case that led to the indictment of first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) and three presidential aides.
Unfortunately, Ma and Chen's controversial use of such funds are not isolated and random.
A good portion, if not the majority, of Taiwan's officials would likely have difficulty in proving they used special expense funds for the purpose designated.
Anyone who has ever worked for the government or semi-governmental agency should know that the practice of borrowing receipts for reimbursement is a fairly common practice.
But it is also a fairly corrupt practice that should have been banned long ago. It is sincerely hoped that the recent probes into the use of special allowance funds will effectively lead to their abolishment.
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on