Politicians never cease to amaze with their brazenness.
The latest example comes from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who, apparently taken aback by the enthusiastic response of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporters to the DPP’s “three little pigs” donation campaign, took a swipe at the opposition party on Sunday, saying: “We store our wealth among the people and create opportunities for people to become more affluent, rather than send out piggy banks to raise money from the people.”
If only Ma could see the irony in his statement.
Perhaps Ma has not noticed, but fundraising for electoral campaign purposes is a common practice in democratic countries. As long as all funds are solicited in accordance with the law, there is no wrongdoing.
And if Ma believes a political party should not raise money from the public, why has his own re--election campaign office launched a TV campaign calling on the public to make small donations to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)?
Surely Ma could not have been serious when he declared: “We store our wealth among the people.” The KMT is one of the richest political parties in the world. Last year alone, it had an income of NT$3.5 billion (US$116.1 million), NT$2.9 billion of which came from stock dividends.
To suggest that the KMT’s wealth is shared with or belongs to Taiwanese is anything but convincing, particularly as the party struggles to defend the legitimacy of its assets, many of which were taken over from the Japanese colonial government when the KMT seized control of Taiwan after World War II.
Ma might say that his administration takes pride in sharing the wealth, but recent incidents have proven otherwise.
Last month, Ma announced the Executive Yuan’s proposal to raise retired farmers’ monthly subsidy from NT$6,000 to NT$ 6,316. Does he really believe that a mere NT$316 per month translates as sharing “wealth” with the people, especially when some KMT legislators have suggested raising the monthly subsidy to NT$10,000?
Let’s not forget how much of the taxpayers’ money the government so “generously” spent on the musical Dreamers (夢想家), which was staged as part of the Ma administration’s Double Ten National Day celebrations last month.
That project cost more than NT$215 million. Meanwhile, a government program that provides nutritional supplements to children from low-income families has an annual budget of about NT$9 million.
Then there was the plan by the Council of Agriculture to end a milk subsidy program for children, which is part of the aforementioned nutritional supplement policy. It is only thanks to the clamoring voices of the opposition last week that the council did a U-turn and agreed not to do away with the milk handouts.
It certainly is a funny way to “store our wealth among the people.”
These examples clearly illustrate how tightfisted the government is when it comes to providing financial help to those in need.
Ma might be able to talk the talk, but when is he going to prove to the public that he can walk the walk?
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS