As it becomes clear that President Chen Shui-bian (
Given the scale of the problem, Taiwanese may have to decide whether they are ready to condemn not just a handful of government officials, but perhaps hundreds or even thousands of them for continuing the outdated but widespread practice of drawing from special allowance funds.
Last week, Premier Su Tseng-chang (
Shih and the Ministry of Justice were criticized for suggesting in a press release that prosecutors should adopt a more lenient approach in investigating government officials' use of the funds. In particular, Shih's release suggested sidestepping the issue of what officials did with the portion of their funds that did not require receipts for reimbursement. The release went as far as to suggest that the funds should be treated as "substantial subsidy" to government officials.
The ministry's release was immediately rebutted by prosecutors Eric Chen (
This is not a legal question but a political question. The nation's prosecutors have the discretion and power to enforce the law, but they cannot make it. The nature of the funds and whether they are in fact intended to subsidize the income of officials are issues that must first be resolved based on the intent of the relevant legislation.
For the ministry -- or for Shih in his capacity as justice minister -- to issue a statement suggesting a course of action for prosecutors was entirely inappropriate, especially because the ministry was the supervising body for the nation's prosecutors. The press release could be interpreted as providing the prosecutors with guidance on how they should investigate specific cases.
Around the same time the press release was issued, Su was criticized for stating that no one is at fault or should be blamed for the controversies surrounding the use of the special allowance funds.
Su is a politician who does not directly supervise prosecutors, so the appearance of impropriety is less obvious in his case.
In particular, if Su was making a political statement rather than issuing instructions or orders as the nation's premier, then the message that he was trying to convey is not entirely without merit.
In any event, the issue of the special allowance funds will first require a political remedy rather than a legal one. The system must be reformed from the roots up, and the political system -- not the judicial system -- is the proper avenue for accomplishing such reform.
The political process does not occur in a vacuum. Political leaders must listen to those they serve -- the voters -- when they decide whether the practice of special allowance funds should be continued.
If the public and their representatives decide to continue the system, it must be reformed to make it legitimate and lawful. There should be no more gray areas or loopholes that politicians can take advantage of.
After the political process has performed its function, then it will be time to move on to the more sensitive and difficult issue of what to do with officials who have misused their special allowance funds.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS