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
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS