An examination of the indictment brought against first lady Wu Shu-jen (
From a legal standpoint, if the law says that receipts must be submitted to verify and write off an item, then even if only one receipt is found to be false, it could still be considered a criminal act. If, on the other hand, the law does not require receipts, but only requires that the money was spent on specified items, it doesn't matter how many receipts there are. In this case, it would be necessary to decide whether the budget and accounting procedure is flawed, but it would not constitute a crime.
This means that the key to this case is what the law demands of the president. This is also the point that society hopes the courts will clarify. However, all we have heard are suspicions surrounding one receipt, or where another receipt ended up.
The indictment is an impressive 30,000 characters in length, but only a little more than 100 or so address this issue.
Moreover, the only basis referred to is the Management Guidelines for The Disposal of Expenditure Vouchers (支出憑證處理要點). No law is cited, nor is any jurisprudential explanation given. Indeed, in this "legal" document with such a serious impact on the reputation on a head of state, we do not even see the word "law."
The predecessor to the management guidelines -- rules for certification of expenditure vouchers (支出憑證證明規則) -- was established by the Ministry of Audit in 1989 based on the Audit Law (審計法).
In 2002, however, authority was transferred to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS), which replaced the rules with the management guidelines that were merely a set of administrative regulations. Not only did this document lack legal authority, but the method by which a budget should be compiled, and how expenses should be verified and written off, was left entirely to the discretion of the DGBAS.
In this case, the basis for the state's right punish improper use of the fund is a procedure that allows budget and accounting officials to make changes and adjustments with little notice.
Leaving aside the issue of whether this infringes on the basic principle that delegated authority should have a clearly defined source, even if the guidelines were to be considered a link in the accounting system mentioned in the Accounting Law (會計法), and even if we look at item three in the management guidelines, which say that "[the person] applying for expense reimbursement should ... vouch for the truthfulness of the actual expenditure," the guidelines do not restrict reimbursements on the basis of invoices alone.
Any receipt or document received as proof of an expense is acceptable. In particular, the guidelines' statement of purpose indicates that they are concerned with substance and not with form. In other words, the actual existence of vouchers is what is important, and not the kind of voucher. This is also the viewpoint expressed in the indictment.
The question is about which expenses require original receipts and what information they should contain. The president's state affairs fund should not be treated differently from funds handled by other officials.
Based on the debates over the Office of the President Organization Act (總統府組織法) and its budget, I surmise that this is related to the position of the president as delineated by the Constitution.
The presidency is both a constitutional body and a position. As an institution, the presidency is separate from the Presidential Office, but as a position, it is the reason for that office's existence.
The budget items needed for the presidency as an institution to help the president fulfill his duties are allocated to the Presidential Office. This means that the original proof submitted for verification of presidential expenditures could consist of souvenirs bought for the president by the office's administrative staff, as well as direct gifts from the president. For the former, the issue of receipts would arise, while for the latter, the proof of expenditure would be the president's claim form.
Based on the elevated position of the president and the special character of his or her expenditures, the use of presidential funds is handled on a basis of sincerity and trust. Unless the expenditures are governed by specific laws or fall under what Constitutional Interpretation No. 391 by the Council of Grand Justices referred to as a "law of measures," any administrative regulation or practical measure that regards the use of a "claim form" from the president as insufficient, and which assumes that a lack of receipts for expenditures is a violation of the guidelines, is the result of misreading the president's constitutional position.
Liu Wen-shi is an adviser of the Ministry of the Interior and executive secretary of the ministry's Laws and Regulations Committee.
Translated by Marc Langer and Perry Svensson
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS