On his first day in office, independent Hualien County Commissioner Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁) appointed his “ex-wife” Hsu Chen-wei (徐榛蔚) as deputy commissioner, provoking a storm of public debate.
The Ministry of the Interior (MOI) made the unusual move of immediately releasing a press statement to declare the appointment invalid.
Yet the Ministry of Civil Service, charged with implementing the Civil Service Employment Act (工務人員任用法), said that although it is illegal for an official to appoint a spouse as his or her deputy, the law no longer applies once the two are divorced.
The MOI then tweaked its stance, announcing that since the two were divorced, the appointment should be valid, unless the pair were still living under the same roof, which would violate the Public Officials Conflict of Interest Prevention Act (公職人員利益衝突迴避法).
The MOI deserves credit for its effort to find a legal basis to stop an appointment that would undermine the legal system. It must be said, however, that the ministry’s grasp of the law is a little weak if the best it can do is grope around for countermeasures whenever political hacks make a mockery of the legal system by abusing their powers and playing games with the law.
Everyone knows that fake marriages with immigrants are against the law — the crime in question being forgery. This is because civil servants then issue a false document, effectively colluding in a fictitious declaration of marriage.
Fu and Hsu finalized their divorce on Dec. 18, just before Fu took office.
It is obvious that the purpose of this action was to evade the appointment restriction imposed by the Civil Service Employment Act.
In reality, divorce is not just a matter of filling out a few forms. It involves practical matters such as dividing property and determining custody of children.
More to the point, there should be no cohabitation or common property after the divorce.
At his inauguration this month, Fu even addressed Hsu as his “taitai” (太太, wife) and praised her for marrying him in his time of difficulty and for standing by him.
It is glaringly obvious that the two are still in a husband-and-wife relationship and that their divorce was a fictitious claim that lead a public servant to issue an untrue document.
There can be no doubt that a fake divorce is a form of forgery, and therefore a crime under the law.
Furthermore, the purpose of this particular fake divorce was to evade the restriction on appointments laid down by Article 26 of the Civil Service Employment Act.
It was a conspiracy to secure the position of deputy county commissioner, a public position, for Hsu.
Prosecutors should take action to uphold the integrity of the legal system for the sake of the public good.
Instead of waiting for someone to file a complaint, they should take the initiative by investigating Fu and Hsu’s fake divorce and prosecuting the couple. Prosecutors are duty bound to fight crime by strictly enforcing the law.
Four years ago, then Taitung county commissioner Wu Chun-li (吳俊立) was removed from office after being found guilty on corruption charges in his first trial.
Upon being sworn into office, Wu had appointed his “ex-wife” Kuang Li-chen (鄺麗貞) as his deputy commissioner.
This was never investigated, however, because Wu lost his position after the (unrelated) corruption trial. Yet this, too, was an unlawful appointment following a fake divorce. As it occurred just four years ago, the statutory period for investigating the case has not yet expired. In fact, the two divorce cases can, and should, be investigated together.
It is to be hoped that prosecutors will take action now to deter shameless politicians from taking the electorate for a ride.
The restrictions on political appointments stipulated in Article 26 of the Civil Service Employment Act are basic conditions for combating corruption.
Those in the government should use every means at their disposal to uphold anti-corruption regulations.
Otherwise, Taiwan’s efforts to stop conflicts of interest will come to naught.
For the sake of the integrity of our legal system, the authorities should do all they can to prevent appointments that violate the law, while prosecutors should launch immediate investigations into these cases and prosecute all those involved.
Once a court of law has found a politician’s divorce to be fake, formally declaring it null and void, Article 26 of the Civil Service Employment Act will apply, and an appointment that is illegal will automatically become null and void, too.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a lawyer and former member of the Examination Yuan.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
The Ministry of the Interior late last month released its report on homes that consumed low amounts of electricity in the second half of last year, offering a glimpse of the latest data on “vacant houses” — homes using less than 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. The report showed that Taiwan had 914,196 vacant houses, or a vacancy rate of 9.79 percent, up from 9.32 percent in the first half of last year and the highest since 2008, when it was 9.81 percent. Of the nation’s 22 administrative areas, Lienchiang County (Matsu) had the highest vacancy rate at 17.4
RSS