Unlike the high-profile, flamboyant Chinese tycoon Chen Guangbiao (陳光標), many Taiwanese carry out their charitable deeds quietly. Donations for relief efforts after the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11 are no exception. Government information shows donations from Taiwanese and local charity groups had reached more than NT$3 billion (US$103.5 million) by late last month.
It therefore comes as a shock and causes mixed feelings among many donors to learn that the Red Cross Society of the Republic of China (ROC) decided to send only a fraction of Taiwan’s collective love to Japan in what the organization called the initial phase of relief. According to the organization, a total of NT$1.5 billion had been raised from the public as of March 28. During a meeting on March 31, its management unanimously agreed to give the Red Cross in Japan US$15 million for emergency relief first and withhold the remaining sum until the Japanese came up with a clearer reconstruction and rebuilding plan.
This is dumbfounding. How could the Red Cross Society of the ROC take upon itself to decide how the funds should be used when Taiwanese donors’ intentions were clear that their donations were for relief, not to meddle in Japan’s domestic affairs?
The organization, in its defense, argued that it is its long-standing policy to give out large disaster relief funds in phases, depending on the need of the country.
As Article 19 of the Charity Donations Act (公益勸募條例) clearly stipulates that donations raised by charitable groups cannot be used for purposes other than what was stated in a plan approved by the authorities, the Red Cross in Taiwan should make its plan public. If the plan is found to contain little detail, the responsibility would fall on the authorities.
The latest controversy concerning the organization reminds many that this is not the first time it has seemingly taken the liberty to allot funds donated by the public for purposes different from the donors’ original intent. Many vividly recall that in June, 2008, it decided to donate NT$64 million — an amount it received from the Taipei City Government’s leftover 921 Earthquake relief funds — to a school in China following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.
While some may argue that the donation went to a good cause anyway by helping the students in Sichuan, the problem lies in donors not being properly informed as to how their donations will be used.
While the latest controversy should not denigrate the Red Cross Society of the ROC, which has earned recognition for its good work in the past, the latest incident was a further instance of the organization seemingly arbitrarily deciding how to use donations without the donors’ consent. The organization should conduct its operations with transparency if it is to maintain its reputation.
Some Netizens posting on a Facebook group said that they had lost confidence in the Red Cross Society of the ROC and would take their donations to other relief groups. It would be an utter shame if the organization tarnished its hard-won reputation — and more importantly, tarnished Taiwanese humanitarian relief efforts and betrayed the kindness of the Taiwanese.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,