News this week that the presidential “state affairs fund” may increase by a third next year likely raised a few eyebrows, and for a number of reasons.
The announcement flew in the face of public opinion. It also ignored the debate over the fund’s lack of transparency and the risk of abuse resulting from ambiguous regulation and inadequate oversight. Furthermore, the Presidential Office’s motivation for boosting the fund — to help disadvantaged groups — seemed contrived and illogical.
Long after the controversy erupted over the presidential state affairs fund and the special allowances that come with senior government positions, the hope of reform has dwindled. Not surprisingly, Taiwan’s politicians are uninterested in changing a comfortable system that has benefited them for decades.
To sober observers, however, it is clear that this reimbursement system, born under a dictatorship, is a relic within Taiwan’s democratic transformation.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) has confirmed a report that it is seeking legislative approval to increase the fund from NT$30 million (US$913,000) to NT$40 million. The fund was NT$50 million for 24 years until 2007, when it was slashed to NT$30 million amid corruption allegations against then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his family.
The Presidential Office’s statement — that the funds were needed to support marginalized groups not covered by current government programs — was ambiguous. It is not clear what Ma intends to spend the money on, while gaps in the government’s welfare net should be addressed by revamping whatever programs the office was referring to.
As it stands, the public has little reason to believe that misuse of these funds and questionable accounting practices have changed in the past few years. Short of making the system transparent — President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had proposed posting a weekly online report detailing the presidential fund’s use — taxpayers can only hope that a fear of being exposed will keep officials in check. But the public may be forgiven if they do not have much faith in the consciences of officials as agents of restraint.
Unfortunately, Ma’s proposal for an online report, made to Transparency International, has not materialized. Implementing the idea could be a first push toward reform, backing calls for better legislation and stricter oversight of other officials’ special funds.
The Presidential Office’s announcement came just one day before news that three former minor secretaries to Ma during his terms as Taipei mayor had been granted deferred prosecution over shady accounting. Wu Li-ju (吳麗洳), Liu Jin-jung (劉靜蓉) and Hsu Yu-mei (徐玉美) have admitted to forging paperwork detailing non-existent employee bonuses to account for fund reimbursements and have said the practice was nothing new. They will not be indicted in the next three years, however, and could even be spared prosecution after that.
Ma’s secretary, Yu Wen (余文), who was sentenced to 12 months in prison, was not as fortunate.
Ma was indicted in the same case as Yu. Although he conceded to wiring millions of NT dollars from his mayoral fund directly into family accounts, the court said he didn’t break the law. The question is whether the public approves of a system that allows officials to wire public funds into personal bank accounts.
The decision two years ago to cut back the state affairs fund was a welcome gesture, though hardly sufficient to quell concerns about the fund. To justify an increase now, the Presidential Office will not only have to make a better case for why the money is needed, it will have to introduce safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent in the public interest.
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