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.)
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