Have all state resources become campaign tools for President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) re-election bid? This appears to be a valid concern in light of a recent series of incidents which suggest the possible exploitation of government resources for partisan gain.
First, it was reported that in a notice recently mailed by the Ministry of the Interior to low-income and disadvantaged families informing them of the new social welfare subsidies, which come into effect on Sunday, the ministry made special mention of Ma’s name, with Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) saying in the opening paragraph that the program was made possible “under President Ma’s directive.” Similar phrases of praise were also spotted in letters of notification mailed out by other agencies, such as the Council of Labor Affairs, informing the public of new policies which also take effect on Sunday.
Despite previous notification letters seldom giving a president credit for implementing new subsidy programs, it is little wonder that under the Ma government such phrases appeared in the letters mailed out by agencies.
Then came an even more absurd piece of news on Tuesday: That former deputy legislative speaker Yao Eng-chi (饒穎奇), who once served in the military police, reportedly delivered a speech at the Military Police Command on Dec. 10 in support of Ma’s re-election bid. Whatever happened to the armed forces’ repeated calls for personnel to maintain administrative neutrality?
This is not the end of it. Just when one wonders how the government can get more ridiculous, it was reported yesterday that a group of prosecutors intercepted a tour bus in Greater Kaohsiung, claiming they had received a tip-off that the passengers, returning from a wedding banquet in Taipei, had actually been on an outing in exchange for supporting the pan-green camp. It was only after the passengers produced video clips of the wedding showing that no pan-green candidates attended the event, but rather a pan-blue candidate, that the prosecutors stopped their questioning and left.
Granted, the prosecutors might very well have been doing their job — probing vote-buying allegations. However, by virtue of doing their job, weren’t they supposed to first verify the tip before launching an action that harassed people and created a public impression that a particular political camp is engaging in illegal campaign actions?
Last, but not least, Next Magazine carried a report yesterday alleging that the National Security Council head acted beyond his scope by instructing the Ministry of Justice’s Investigation Bureau to monitor Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) campaign information.
One can’t help but wonder whether all spheres of government — including the administration, judiciary and intelligence services — have now been caught in a certain political camp’s claws, in which they exploit government resources for a certain individual’s and party’s gain — and more despicably, using taxpayers’ money to do so.
Maybe it is time the president and his government revisit the meaning of the term administrative neutrality and prove to the Taiwanese that they can walk the walk.
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS