The High Court on Tuesday found Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) not guilty of embezzling assistant fees. The court acquitted Kao of her corruption charge, reducing her sentence to six months in prison — commutable to a fine — for causing a public official to commit document forgery. The subsequent controversy extends beyond Kao’s individual case, centering on the judges’ legal interpretation of the legislative intent and budgetary nature of assistant fees, as it overturns established institutional practices and fundamental legal principles governing the use of public funds.
The High Court reasoned that assistant fees are disbursed in a lump sum and considered “substantial subsidies with flexible allocation” — therefore, once disbursed, the funds become the legislators’ property and can be spent at their discretion. As long as they are considered to be the legislators’ own money, their use would not constitute corruption. However, Article 32 of the Organic Act of the Legislative Yuan (立法院組織法) stipulates that legislators can hire publicly funded assistants in accordance with the law, with fees budgeted and paid for by the Legislative Yuan. Any portion of the funds corresponding to unfilled assistant positions or unpaid salaries that do not reach the cap must be returned to the national treasury. While in practice assistant salaries are processed through a legislator’s office as part of payroll, this is merely an administrative arrangement. It does not alter the legal nature of the funds as public money belonging to the national treasury, nor does it remove the statutory restrictions on their use.
Assistant fees bear the characteristics of public funds — they come from the national treasury, their use is restricted by law and the recipients of the funds must meet statutory employment requirements. Even if, as an administrative matter, the Legislative Yuan assists with processing salary disbursements, this cannot be taken to mean that the funds have become legislators’ property and are subject to unlimited discretion. Arrangements of the administrative process do not alter the legal nature of assistant fees.
The ruling equated the management method of assistant fees with a legislator’s discretionary authority, redefining the legal nature of assistant fees. Under this logic, whether assistants are actually hired or paid their salaries would be reduced to mere accounting and documentation issues, no longer involving the substantive rules governing the use of public funds. This not only significantly narrows the scope of the offense of corruption, but might reframe such conduct as no more than an administrative or documentary violation.
The potential consequences are deeply concerning. Regarding assistant fees as funds subject to legislators’ unfettered discretion would inevitably shake the foundations of the legislative assistant system. Practices such as falsifying assistant positions or underpaying assistants while overstating expenses would lack meaningful deterrence at the level of the Criminal Code, defanging oversight mechanisms. This is not merely a matter of adjudicating a single case — it is a critical turning point affecting legislative employment ethics, trust in the use of public funds and consistency in the rule of law.
Whether assistant fees are truly the legislators’ money is not merely an issue of legal technicality; it concerns the state’s basic understanding and attitude toward public power and public resources. In a democratic society, public funds must not only be used for public purposes, but must be lawfully used. Once this boundary becomes blurred, the impact extends beyond individual political figures, undermining the very foundations of public trust in the entire system.
Dino Wei works in the information technology industry.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
RSS