Red line rules abuse
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications on June 30 revised the temporary parking rules, where red line stopping is no longer a traffic offense if reported by civilians. Only police can issue tickets and fine drivers who contravene the temporary parking rules.
Since police officers cannot be everywhere all the time, there are drivers who abuse the revised red line rule at the expense of other law-abiding citizens. For example, in the area where I live, there are red line zones for the city recycling and garbage trucks to stop temporarily so that people can drop off their trash. However, we frequently see cars stopping there, even when the trucks arrive and need the space. Last night, there was a Porsche stopping at the red line zone, leaving a very small amount of space for the two trucks to park and for people to move around the trucks.
I approached the Porsche, knocked on the window and talked to the driver about the inconvenience that he had caused. He waved his hands impatiently and told me to make a report if I wished, knowing that my report did not have any legal effect. I could not help but wonder: If my photo of his parking offense could be a legal evidence, would the Porsche driver be more willing to respect other people’s rights and move his car?
Many drivers have complained about the fairness of the red line temporary parking rules. As a result, the ministry revised the rules to accommodate drivers’ needs. However, the revision also creates loopholes that allow drivers to ignore other people’s rights. The Porsche I encountered last night was one such example. The ministry might consider reactivating the public reporting policy to protect the rights of the public.
Tina Yu
Taipei
Do not justify corruption
Speaking about Hsinchu County Commissioner Yang Wen-ke (楊文科) and former Straits Exchange Foundation chairman Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦), Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) said that Cheng was involved in corruption, but Yang was only involved in profiteering.
As for former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) involvement in the Core Pacific City Mall case, Ko, who is also chairman of the TPP, said that although it did involve seeking profit, he could not see anything illegal about it.
About the conviction for corruption of suspended Hsinchu City mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), who was until recently a member of the TPP, Ko said that Kao had committed a crime, but did not have any criminal intent.
When Ko’s wife, Peggy Chen (陳佩琪), set up a company, but had not yet used it to do any business, she said that there was criminal intent, but no criminal activity.
These fallacious arguments put forward by certain members of the TPP and Ko’s wife are reminiscent of how some corrupt officials in China try to justify their actions.
Let us consider three examples:
First is Cao Guifang (曹桂芳), former director of the Water Resources Bureau of Shizhong District in Leshan City and secretary of the local branch of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), who said that she did not realize that corruption was a serious crime until she was arrested for it.
Tan Xinsheng (譚新生), former deputy mayor of Tongnan County in Chongqing, said that accepting “gifts” and “rewards” is normal, professional behavior that serves the purpose of economic development and reflects the principle that “development is the hard truth.”
Yang Liquan (楊禮權), former secretary of the CCP’s Daojiao Town Committee in Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, said that the money he received was a reward that other people gave him in the hope that he would solve their problems as soon as possible.
Such arguments presented by corrupt officials are “rhetorical corruption,” former Association of Chinese Sociolinguistics president Su Jinzhi (蘇金智) said.
People who engage in corruption always manipulate language to turn the truth on its head. They say one thing and do another. What they really think, what they say in meetings and what they end up doing are three different things, Su said.
Su goes on to say that this rhetorical corruption has many manifestations, with euphemisms and violent language being its two extremes that play the role of carrot and stick. At one end, people try to justify their behavior by acting coy and innocent, while at the other they use aggressive language to insult or attack innocent people.
Asked about the TPP’s misreporting of election campaign expenses, Ko said that he had misjudged people’s roles.
His campaign team had made mistakes, Ko said, adding that they would learn from those misjudgements.
However, Ko’s mother angrily reacted to the criticism, saying that anyone else who accused her son of embezzlement would be struck by lightning. In so doing, this mother-and-son pair demonstrated the two extremes of corruption, namely euphemisms and violent language.
Ko said that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family. As if to prove the point, he has the same attitude to corruption as the CCP. It really is a shame.
Muduo
Taipei
Sincerity now heartlessness
In this year’s presidential election, former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said he was the only politician to receive a political contribution of NT$340 million (US$10.6 million), much of which were small donations of pocket change or the meager wages of “little grass” supporters — money they scrimped and saved just to give to Ko. Before the election, Ko endlessly pleaded his “poverty” to his supporters, even saying: “I will cherish every single penny you give me.”
So what happened?
The maelstrom around Ko’s election campaign accounts has exposed how much money is in the TPP’s coffers. It has spent its supporters’ money like the sky is the limit. More than NT$14 million was spent on pre-election polling. The Ko campaign spent NT$9 million on one poll alone. When other candidates were paying a bit more than NT$100,000 for a political ad, the Ko camp felt the need to spend NT$700,000.
Ko’s campaign headquarters in New Taipei City’s Sinjhuang District (新莊) used NT$16 million on office decor alone. Compare this with the amount spent by President William Lai’s (賴清德) campaign on decorations for all his campaign centers across the nation, which amounted to a bit more than NT$8 million.
When it came to spending on large campaign venues for events with lackluster attendance, Ko spent more than NT$4 million. He touted himself as “the most fiscally disciplined [candidate].”
When did he “cherish” any of the donations?
After the flash flood of Ko’s financial mismanagement came to light, it turns out his team not only failed to keep proper records, but they also highlighted a lot of cooking of the books and large sums transferred from party accounts to private accounts, such as with marketing firm Muko.
Whose pockets were ultimately lined after the money was withdrawn? What happened to the TPP’s cashflow worth tens of millions of New Taiwan dollars?
Accounting entries for Ko’s political campaign finances are in complete disarray. How could someone see Ko and the TPP as “pragmatic, rational and scientific” after all this?
Since Ko’s alleged involvement with corruption cases as Taipei mayor, such as the Core Pacific City Mall and Beitou Shilin Technology Park projects, his sincere and honest image is now in tatters.
He often pleaded poverty to supporters, but in reality the TPP was loaded with cash. All it took was this year’s presidential election and Ko was able to bring in NT$110 million. Each year, the TPP also raked in about NT$200 million in government stipends intended for smaller political parties. Ko’s wallet has been brimming with cash. The TPP certainly has not wanted for anything.
Why would the TPP’s supporters want to exchange sincerity for heartlessness? How do Ko and the TPP still have the gall to put their hands out and ask for more donations?
Chiu Bing-chin
Taipei
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS