Politicians from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps have begun a "mudfight" by filing criminal lawsuits against numerous former and current government officials over their use of special allowance funds. All civil servants who now have or have had access to such funds in the past fear that they will be the next to be targeted.
The strange thing is that these accusations and lawsuits are not aimed at rooting out corrupt officials. Rather, the accusers make such claims to cover up their own corrupt practices: if so many officials are misusing the funds, then the system is responsible, not the individuals.
Taxpayers and voters must now decide how to resolve this issue. I am optimistic that this kind of mudfight could serve as a stimulant for Taiwanese to reflect on existing political habits and offer an opportunity to develop a new civic culture.
First, the mudfights will encourage citizens to examine politicians with a bit of healthy cynicism. Taiwan's democratization has been unfolding for several years now, but a good number of people still mistakenly believe in political "saints" who can do no wrong.
In the mudfight currently before us, every politician has become a suspect.
Regardless of their actual guilt, they will be scrutinized by the public and possibly by the judicial system. In the future, voters will be less likely to believe politicians when they casually say "trust me."
Democratic politics must be based on a healthy distrust of those in power rather than adoration. The special allowance funds uproar may usher in a new era when citizens question every politician rather than just those from the opposite camp.
Second, the mudfight offers an opportunity for deep reflection about the nation's political culture, which does not differentiate between a politician's public and private life.
Government officials use special allowance funds, which are provided by taxpayers, to buy wedding and funeral gifts, hold banquets and hand out special rewards. Voters have a tendency to think of their "public representatives" as "private representatives," allowing politicians to use public funds to consolidate their own political position.
The mixing of public and private affairs is also reflected in the design of many special allowance funds, which stipulate that half of the allowance can be used without requiring expense receipts. This practice turns the funds -- regardless of whether they are labeled as "salary," "expenses" or "compensation" -- into personal income because there is no way to verify their use.
The use of public resources in such a shortsighted and selfish manner should not be tolerated. By halting the practice of not requiring receipts for reimbursement from special allowance funds, the problem of politicians using public resources for private advantage would be stopped.
If these funds are truly intended for officials to spend on public affairs, then reimbursements should be made only when proper receipts are submitted.
The mudfight also gives supporters of both the pan-blue and pan-green camps an opportunity for further self reflection.
Voters should ask themselves whether they have used the same standard to examine politicians.
The judicial system does not encourage public litigation. But with the legal challenges filed over special allowance funds, the public have found a way to monitor politicians through the judiciary.
It is possible that most of those accused have not violated any laws, but given the current system, it is only through criminal investigations that the public will be able to clarify what politicians are actually doing.
The main point of these lawsuits is not whether the accused are guilty, but rather that the process is challenging existing political structures. This provides an outstanding opportunity to reflect on Taiwan's civil culture.
Bruce Liao is an assistant professor of law at Soochow University and an adviser to the Taipei City Government's Human Rights Protection Committee.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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