The Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation’s management problems have become the focus of intense debate. Its financial dealings, land use, construction: It has all come under close scrutiny and seems to be developing into a denunciation campaign.
For many years now, the name “Tzu Chi” has been equated with, and gained global renown for, relief work. Almost anywhere disaster or poverty strikes, its blue-and-white-dressed volunteers can be seen lending a helping hand.
One can only hope that public criticism of this group that has made so many contributions will be constructive and that all religious organizations in the country will adopt transparent operations.
Tzu Chi is not alone, but its rapid development and its size has produced a strong and focused backlash, which in fact is a backlash against the almost complete lack of regulations governing Taiwan’s religious organizations.
There are 27 religious organizations registered with the Ministry of the Interior. All these organizations should be treated equally and be governed by reasonable laws and regulations stipulating that what comes from the public should also be used for the public. Income, expenditures and other financial details should be reported and be open to public scrutiny. This must be the most basic requirement, but the reality unfortunately looks very different.
Current legislation and regulations regarding religious organizations are divided into two sections. When Catholic and Protestant organizations were first established in Taiwan, they registered as foundations, and are thus regulated as foundations. However, these regulations are administrative orders issued by the interior ministry, and cases would be dealt with under civil law or the Ministry of the Interior.
The regulations governing Eastern beliefs such as Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are even more preposterous.
Such organizations are governed by the Temple Oversight Act (寺廟監督條例), which was promulgated almost a century ago in China on Dec. 7, 1929. The whole act consists of a mere 13 articles. Because it only governs temples with Buddhist and Taoist monks, and not Christian churches, several of the articles have been deemed unconstitutional by the Council of Grand Justices, leaving but a few articles. Add to this that temple registration is governed by an administrative order and it is easy to see that there are many loopholes.
This situation means that the legality of land zoning and building occupation permits for many temples in Taiwan is questionable.
Another problem is insufficient financial transparency. This chaotic situation has perhaps developed over the years because religious circles do not care, but also, and more importantly, because of the failure of the government’s system.
The current controversy surrounding Tzu Chi is just the tip of the iceberg, but it would be a good thing if it could help us see the full extent of the problem.
Recent statements by Premier Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) and former premier Sean Chen (陳?) are a reminder to us all about whether the Cabinet has a responsibility to fill in the creation of a well-rounded body of laws. For example, when it comes to religious organizations that have received large donations from the public, the simplest way to avoid irregularities would be for them to clearly state their financial record. Why is there no law to that effect?
To deal with this chaos, there was an initiative to write an act governing religious organizations toward the end of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) first period in government, and financial transparency was part of the act’s basic articles. Unfortunately, the initiative was not followed up on after the change in government that took place in 2000.
Under the Democratic Progressive Party administration from 2000 to 2008, the act was debated in the legislature four times, but failed to gain the support of the KMT majority.
In February 2008, a consensus version of the act was proposed, but following the change in government in May that year, the incoming KMT administration and its five consecutive premiers — Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), Sean Chen, Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and Mao Chi-kuo — shelved the previous government’s draft act without proposing a new version.
They were also unwilling to issue new administrative orders and to propose an act to regulate foundations, which has led to the current permissive situation and the total lack of control.
It is time that all these leaders engaged in some self-reflection and realized that they are part of the problem and have thus disqualified themselves from commenting on the issue.
In addition to all this, a host of deliberate rumors have for many years been spread in the legislature, with officials saying that this and that KMT legislator is backed by this and that big religious organization that does not want its financial dealings exposed, and these legislators then block any such proposals.
Other legislators say that there is massive pressure from religious organizations and that the government therefore is unwilling to address the issue, and there are also people who say that many legislators are devoted “defenders” of specific religious organizations.
As these rumors continue unabated, drafts get shelved for years as the government and legislators are said to have special connections to a small number of religious organizations.
To make all religious organizations keep strictly to the straight and narrow, continue to use their power to do good and promote stability, increase transparency and prevent a small group of people from letting down the hopes of the general public are some of the most urgent issues today.
The first step begins with a complete set of laws governing religious organizations. If politics and unscrupulous interests can be removed from the process and an act governing religious organizations can be passed, the current controversy will have brought something good.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS