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.)
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