Minister of Culture Hung Meng-chi (洪孟啟) offering his resignation yesterday amid media reports accusing the Ministry of Culture of using the national coffers to “subsidize” the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) comes as a timely reminder that, with next year’s presidential and legislative elections less than 110 days away, it is increasingly important for the public to keep a close eye on the government to prevent it from squandering taxpayers’ money on partisan interests.
While Hung has denied the accusation, telling a news conference yesterday that the proposal to allot NT$2.5 million (US$75,465) to each KMT lawmaker serving on the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee to ensure the passage of the ministry’s budget had been immediately rejected on the grounds of the principle of administrative neutrality.
However, the Chinese-language Next Magazine, which exposed the alleged irregularities within the ministry, said Hung was lying.
In view of the alleged breach of administrative neutrality by members of his Cabinet, Premier Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) certainly owes the public an explanation; it is therefore dumbfounding that Mao has instead asked Hung to stay put and did not accept his resignation.
So much for President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) repeated lectures that government officials need to heed public perception and ensure neutrality between administrative and party affairs — or could it be that even Ma’s own Cabinet members are used to merely paying Ma lip service?
After all, Ma’s own political track record suggests that he himself has not been setting a good example of drawing a clear line between state and party and ensuring administrative neutrality.
Some might still recall that Ma, shortly after assuming the presidency in 2008, used the state affairs fund to purchase 8,400 boxes of moon cakes from disadvantaged fruit farmers for the Mid-Autumn Festival to give to the underprivileged. While that in itself was a nice gesture, Ma allegedly used the national coffers for partisan gain by having the moon cakes delivered to the underprivileged via the KMT’s local chapters.
Some might also recall that there were media reports in the run-up to Ma’s re-election in 2012 accusing Ma of committing breaches of administrative neutrality by having his re-election campaign office instruct Cabinet-level ministries to encourage their employees to take part in Ma’s re-election rallies.
Not to mention that there have also been reports in the past alleging that under Ma, the nation’s intelligence agencies have conducted surveillance on opposition presidential candidates.
And these are only a few examples in a long litany of transgressions.
Hung’s case is no small matter, as the Anti--Corruption Act (貪汙治罪條例) clearly prohibits officials from engaging in acts that profit an individual, either directly or indirectly, not to mention that the Civil Service Administrative Neutrality Act (公務人員行政中立法) also clearly stipulates that civil servants and administrative officials have to remain politically impartial.
Mao’s easy dismissal of the Hung case shows disregard for the law, is an abuse of administrative power and is disturbing to the many who cherish the nation’s democratic achievements as the nation struggles to throw off its one-party state past.
Civil servants need to bear in mind that they are on the taxpayers’ payroll and their job description calls for them to serve the people, not a specific politician or a particular party.
For any government official to blur the line between state and party suggests not only an abuse of administrative power and possible exploitation of administrative resources for partisan gain, but also an arrogant act that treats the public with contempt and plays them for fools.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the largest naval exercise in the region, are aimed at deepening international collaboration and interaction while strengthening tactical capabilities and flexibility in tackling maritime crises. China was invited to participate in RIMPAC in 2014 and 2016, but it was excluded this year. The underlying reason is that Beijing’s ambitions of regional expansion and challenging the international order have raised global concern. The world has made clear its suspicions of China, and its exclusion from RIMPAC this year will bring about a sea change in years to come. The purpose of excluding China is primarily
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the