Those familiar with Taiwan’s political scene will recall the name Yu Wen (余文), a Taipei City Government staffer during President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) stint as mayor from 1998 to 2006. Following Ma’s indictment in 2006 for misusing his special allowance, Yu became a fall guy in some observers’ eyes, serving nine months in jail for failing to keep Ma’s accounts in order.
The term “Yu Wen” has since become part of Taiwan’s political lingo. It refers to a government official or agency that serves as a scapegoat and takes the heat for higher-ups.
Amid the eruption over the government’s decision to lift a ban on US beef and offal, Department of Health (DOH) Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) appears to be Ma’s latest “Yu Wen.”
A DOH statement on Friday expanding US beef imports generated public anger and infuriated lawmakers across party lines; the latter were seemingly caught off guard by the announcement amid enduring concerns over mad-cow disease.
With all arrows shooting in the DOH’s direction, Ma, in an interview published yesterday, was quick to single out his health minister, saying that Yaung should take responsibility for failing to provide the public with a clear account of the situation.
This makes little sense, as it is extremely unlikely that the DOH has the power to make the final call on issues that stray into areas of diplomatic sensitivity.
A legislative resolution passed in 2006 requires the DOH to report in detail to the legislature before lifting bans on US beef. With DOH Deputy Minister Hsiao Mei-ling (蕭美玲) openly acknowledging on Friday that the DOH announcement violated this resolution, it becomes clear that there must have been a higher authority that compelled the DOH to proceed — despite the inevitable response from the legislature.
That authority could hardly be the Cabinet, judging from Premier Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) rather blunt remarks on Saturday. He said: “How could I have the authority to finalize the policy? I didn’t even know the details.” It is also noteworthy that Wu endorsed the 2006 resolution as a legislator.
Factor in diplomatic concerns and it is highly unlikely that the DOH or the premier would have dared to make the “final call” on US beef without a directive from — or at least the blessing of — the Presidential Office and the National Security Council.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) on Saturday said the lifting of the beef ban was a “joint decision” in which the government acted in concert. This is hopelessly inconsistent with Ma’s attack on the health minister.
Since Ma took office, a disturbing pattern has developed in which lower-order government officials shoulder responsibility for disasters created by their superiors. Such Yu Wen figures include then-director-general of highways James Chen (陳晉源) — the only official to take responsibility in September last year when floodwater caused the Houfeng Bridge (后豐橋) to collapse, claiming six lives — and then-deputy minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言), who took the heat for the government’s initial rejection of foreign aid in the wake of Typhoon Morakot in August.
The more “Yu Wen” figures there are, the more Taiwan will suffer as it endures an incompetent government lined with officials who bask in their power but shy away from responsibility.
Will a real decision-maker stand up?
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
Former Hong Kong media magnate Jimmy Lai (黎智英), who on Monday was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his role in the 2019 Hong Kong democracy movement and “colluding with foreign forces,” once called on members of the US government for support in his struggle against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Speaking to a forum at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in July 2019, Lai, speaking about the US having the moral authority over the CCP, said: “It’s like they are going to battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in
RSS