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condemn not just a handful of government officials, but perhaps hundreds or even thousands of them for continuing the outdated but widespread practice of drawing from special allowance funds.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.
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) in San Francisco on Tuesday last week said if she had not met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), she would have been “just a plain” and “even negligible” KMT chairperson, bluntly signaling the role she is playing in her visit to the US — Beijing’s messenger from Taiwan. Cheng and her delegation arrived in the US on Monday last week for a two-week visit across five major cities. Her party said the group is scheduled to meet with US lawmakers, officials, policy experts and businesspeople. Before departing, Cheng said her trip
In 1935, the German Reich led by the National Socialist Party officially created the Nuremberg Race Laws, a “legal cage”, for German Jews, stripping them of citizenship, criminalizing their personal relationships, barring them from public life, and transforming them into stateless subjects and isolating them from the rest of society. Similarly, in March 2026, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) National People’s Congress adopted the “Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” law, which represents the most significant shift in Chinese domestic governance since the era of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). Ostensibly designed as domestic legislation to manage China’s 56 officially recognized ethnic groups,
RSS