The written verdict in Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (
Since the reasons for the innocent verdict are both conflicted and forced, Ma should face a second test in court. Even if he is found innocent in the second trial, the nation will have a hard time forgiving him for using his special mayoral allowance for his own personal use.
Since the red-clad anti-President Chen Shui-bian (
The verdict gives two main reasons for Ma's innocence: That the special mayoral allowance is a substantial subsidy, and that Ma had no criminal intent. The principal charge under which prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen (
One important criteria for establishing if Ma was guilty of embezzlement was whether he had criminal intent while attempting to defraud public funds. Of course, Ma's defense tried to demonstrate that this was not the case.
Therefore, Ma unfortunately lied after he was indicted, forcefully saying that he had never said the allowance was public funds. Rather, he repeatedly emphasized that he had always seen it as part of his salary. If the judges accept that the allowance was not public funds, and believe Ma's assertion that it was a substantial subsidy, then the foundations constituting embezzlement vanish.
The verdict described in great detail the history and evolution of the allowance. It even referred to public funds during the Song dynasty, as if the Taipei mayoral allowance originated from it. As it says, from 1952 until 1973, all the receipts had to be verified and written off. From 1973 until last year, only half of them had to be. Since the scandal broke this year, all the receipts must once again be inspected.
The ruling explains at great length that the allowance is a substantial subsidy for government heads. But it also says that since 1952, no matter what the verification rules were, the allowance had to be spent on public causes. The allowance was not established as a subsidy for government heads, but to assist them with their public expenses. As to the manner of inspection of receipts, the only difference was how strictly the oversight was managed, not whether it took place.
But a large portion of the verdict is dedicated to defending Ma. It is a one-sided exoneration, and a most strangely written judgment. It says that officials have the right to use half of the subsidy as they like without receipts. When officials produce the receipts, in fact they have already completed the verification process because the accounting and auditing departments won't determine the use of the funds out of respect for governmental authority.
But to conform to the original intent of the allowance, officials should, in practice, use them for public expenses. Even worse, the verdict goes on to say that "the person who collects the allowance must occupy the position of mayor, but does not need to have already actually made the expenditure."
It also says that Ma can pre-spend the allowance, but that it must be used for public affairs.
Even more enraging is that the judges adopted Ma's "reservoir theory," advocating that with all the money donated out, it's impossible to differentiate the allowance from other sources.
The judges have completely ignored that Ma has openly explained that the NT$70 million (US$2.11 million) in donations that he made were all election contributions and not related to his mayoral allowance. The donations from the allowance were the NT$10 million that Ma hurriedly donated only once the case had broken.
The key point is that no matter how the verdict twists the case, and even if the allowance is a substantial subsidy, it should still be used only for public purposes and not privately. The verdict's attempt to defend Ma by saying that the allowance was his private property because it is a substantial subsidy does not pass the test of logic.
I believe Hou should indict Ma under Article 4 of the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption (
Now that I've written this, I suddenly feel very saddened. Could it be that Hou and judge Tsai Shou-hsun (
Allen Houng is convener of the Constitution Reform Alliance.
Translated by Marc Langer
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