Many cases of councilors in Kaohsiung, and other counties and cities, being investigated, prosecuted or sentenced for alleged fraudulent receipt of assistant fees have been reported. These councilors are from different parties and regions, showing that the problem is structural in nature.
First, there is no substantive review mechanism for the payment of subsidies to councilors to enable them to employ assistants. The system has councilors initially submitting a list of assistants, including how much they are to be paid together with their account number, after which the payment is to be remitted directly to the assistants’ accounts.
In practice, the councils do not review information such as assistant rosters and the amounts to be paid, making it a loophole for fraudulent subsidy gain by means of a false roster.
Second, the regulations on employing assistants are inflexible. The Regulations on Allowances for Elected Representatives and Subsidies for Village Heads and Wardens (地方民意代表費用支給及村里長事務補助費補助條例) expressly stipulates the maximum number of publicly funded assistants employed by municipal and county councilors, and the maximum amount of monthly subsidy expenses.
However, as the services provided by the councilors become increasingly diversified, a phenomenon that is not reflected in the law and regulations, the only solution to cover the extra costs is to provide inflated figures to allow more flexibility. The lack of this flexibility only encourages its misuse.
These problems can be tackled in the following ways:
The first is public disclosure of the roster of congressional assistants. As the late US justice Louis Brandeis said: “Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.”
Therefore, the rosters of councilor assistants need to be made available online, making the public aware of the number of the assistants a councilor employs. The list should be modified accordingly should there be any changes. Through a more transparent and open mechanism, citizen oversight can help supervise the distribution of assistant subsidies.
Second, a review system should be established. Having employed the assistants, the Department of Civil Affairs of the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees local self-governance, should work with local councils to review the reimbursement of the assistant subsidy to check for discrepancies and prevent misappropriation of public funds for private purposes.
Third, the law should be amended to make the system for hiring assistants more flexible. As the employment relationship between councilors and assistants is a private contract between two parties, there should be flexibility — for example, no upper limit on the number of assistants — so that employing more assistants would be legal.
Additionally, a Supreme Court judgement (case Taishentzu 1241 of 2018) clearly states the principle of flexible and diversified usage of the budget as long as it does not exceed its limits, saying that if an assistant subsidy is not appropriated for personal use, but used to pay the salaries of assistants exceeding the upper limit of the number of public assistants, it does not constitute corruption.
The Ministry of the Interior’s draft amendment of Article 6 of the regulations is also in line with this principle. Therefore, the Legislative Yuan should quickly introduce the legislation to avoid harm caused by rigid laws.
The problem of fraud in councilor assistant subsidies is multidimensional. Only by removing the systemic flaws can malpractice be avoided.
Wang Yu-pei is an ethics official.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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