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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS