The Taipei Times reported recently that in 1999 I used my special allowance fund in adopting a stray dog and that I later reimbursed the fund for those fees ("Mayor's spending habits attacked by city councilors," Sept. 29, page 3).
The fact of the matter is that I was participating in an event on Aug. 1, 1999, jointly organized by the Council of Agriculture and the Taipei City Government, to promote the adoption of stray dogs, which then numbered around 55,000 in Taipei.
The Animal Disease Control Institute (ADCI) of the city government's Department of Economic Development arranged for Council of Agriculture Chairman Peng Chao-kuei (
Peng and I both signed up for the adoption, but the ADCI took the two puppies back for observation first, because stray dogs normally carry a variety of diseases.
Peng's adopted dog died 10 days later; mine had a high fever and other serious health problems and had to be hospitalized for 10 days.
On Sept. 2, 1999, my wife went to the ADCI to bring our dog home. When she asked to pay the bill, which was NT$9,900, ADCI officials told her that they would ask the mayor's office to take care of the expenses that were incurred by implementing an official policy.
The mayor's office in turn asked the accounting office whether the special allowance could be used. The response was affirmative, because the event was an official one organized by the city government and an agency of the central government. But I was not consulted and remained until recently under the impression that the bill had been paid by my wife.
Although the use of the special allowance was perfectly legal and legitimate, my wife and I decided to give NT$9,900 to the Department of Accounting and Statistics because we believed from the start that we should pay for the adoption of the dog. Because the spending of the NT$9,900 from the special allowance was audited and approved six years ago, there cannot be any reimbursement, and so our NT$9,900 will go toward the budget for the year 2006.
I am writing to request that, when you next refer to this case, please make sure to state that my use of the special allowance before the adopted dog was brought home was for official business and was both legal and legitimate and that I paid for all the expenses of my dog afterwards, and that I nevertheless repaid the city seven years later.
Thank you.
Ma Ying-jeou
Taipei mayor
(Editor's note: Our initial story ("Ma admits to dog handling mistake," Sept. 24, page 1) on this issue included Mayor Ma's explanation of how he acquired the dog and how he repaid the city government.)
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS