Ma also accused of using fake invoices

Politics Taiwan Politics
41

[quote=“one man riot”]This also happened on Thursday, though the article didnt say ‘bribes’. But the same legislator you saw?

Dunno. Probably.

Some things I don’t get:

[quote]http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=318237 Taiwan News, 2006-11-16
…Yu, for expediency’s sake, used invoices worth large sums to replace a large number of original invoices worth small sums for legitimate city expenses such as fruit, newspapers and lunch boxes.
Prosecutors said Yu presented the original invoices to them yesterday, a total of 3,547 receipts worth a total of NT$1.41 million. Yu replaced NT$800,000 of those with larger value invoices [color=blue]between 2003 and June 2006[/color] to claim funds from the mayor’s special allowance. The remaining NT$610,000 in expenses were reimbursed out of another mayoral fund. [/quote]
But, (My confusions in red.)

[quote]http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=320077 Taiwan News, 2006-11-17
…
According to the city government, half of the monthly special allowance of NT$340,000, which does not require the use of invoices, was directly remitted to Ma’s personal account. [color=red]That would be NT$ 7,140,000 over the 42 months cited below. :blush: [/color]

Ninety thousand New Taiwan dollars from the other half of the fund, which has to be accounted for with invoices and receipts, was used to reward city government staff, while the secretarial office of the city government was allowed the use of the remaining NT$30,000, the city government said.

According to the city government, the other NT$50,000 was used to pay miscellaneous fees and Yu was responsible for reporting expenses on that sum of money from the beginning of 2003 to June 2006. [color=red]And 50,000x42 equals 2.1 million. They gave “a total of 3,547 receipts worth a total of NT$1.41 million” to prosecutors, but isn’t the receipt-free part already made up of Ma’s monthly 50% take. Shouldn’t they need to give prosecuters 2.1 million in receipts for “legitimate city expenses such as fruit, newspapers and lunch boxes”?[/color]

It is estimated that Yu replaced about NT$800,000 of small original invoices with large value invoices. [color=red]And, “The remaining NT$610,000 in expenses were reimbursed out of another mayoral fund.” Huh? What other fund?[/color][/quote]
Is it just me, or does there seem to be some obfuscating going on?

42

[quote=“Mer”]If fake invoices didn’t do CSB in, they won’t do Ma in either.
At least Ma didn’t lie about his.

This is getting real tired.[/quote]

Oh, please, go on… I’d like to hear the full defense. :fedora:

Besides what? Besides, the other guy used his fund to buy diamond rings? Well, he offered a believable reason to substitute receipts. It’s called national secrecy. What is Ma’s reason? To prevent the blistering of secretarial fingers.

And how exactly is depositing half the money into his personal account an “official purpose”?

43

[quote=“dearpeter”]
Some things I don’t get:

[quote]http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=318237 Taiwan News, 2006-11-16
…Yu, for expediency’s sake, used invoices worth large sums to replace a large number of original invoices worth small sums for legitimate city expenses such as fruit, newspapers and lunch boxes.
Prosecutors said Yu presented the original invoices to them yesterday, a total of 3,547 receipts worth a total of NT$1.41 million. Yu replaced NT$800,000 of those with larger value invoices [color=blue]between 2003 and June 2006[/color] to claim funds from the mayor’s special allowance. The remaining NT$610,000 in expenses were reimbursed out of another mayoral fund. [/quote]
But, (My confusions in red.)

[quote]http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=320077 Taiwan News, 2006-11-17
…
According to the city government, half of the monthly special allowance of NT$340,000, which does not require the use of invoices, was directly remitted to Ma’s personal account. [color=red]That would be NT$ 7,140,000 over the 42 months cited below. :blush: [/color]

Ninety thousand New Taiwan dollars from the other half of the fund, which has to be accounted for with invoices and receipts, was used to reward city government staff, while the secretarial office of the city government was allowed the use of the remaining NT$30,000, the city government said.

According to the city government, the other NT$50,000 was used to pay miscellaneous fees and Yu was responsible for reporting expenses on that sum of money from the beginning of 2003 to June 2006. [color=red]And 50,000x42 equals 2.1 million. They gave “a total of 3,547 receipts worth a total of NT$1.41 million” to prosecutors, but isn’t the receipt-free part already made up of Ma’s monthly 50% take. Shouldn’t they need to give prosecuters 2.1 million in receipts for “legitimate city expenses such as fruit, newspapers and lunch boxes”?[/color]

It is estimated that Yu replaced about NT$800,000 of small original invoices with large value invoices. [color=red]And, “The remaining NT$610,000 in expenses were reimbursed out of another mayoral fund.” Huh? What other fund?[/color][/quote]
Is it just me, or does there seem to be some obfuscating going on?[/quote]

:laughing: I think they have to save some of those fund for legit purposes, covered by genuine receipts.

taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_c … &cate_rss=

44

[quote] Ma aide details role in receipt fraud
Meanwhile, Ma yesterday confirmed that two deputy mayors, King Pu-tseng (金溥聰) and Chen Yu-chang (陳裕璋) have already asked to be disciplined for failing to prevent the fraud.

“We are still clarifying the situation, and I will make a decision as soon as possible,” he said.[/quote]

Being Deputy Mayor of Taipei seems to be a risky job lately. What ever happened to Deputy Mayor Yeh Chin-chuan (葉金川)?

Have any deputies resigned earlier to take heat for Ma? I can’t recall. But it reminds me to keep wondering about the dead body on the City Hall balcony.

45

Well we all know for a fact now the substituted receipts were all fake since his head clerk only submitted on average 4 receipts a day.

Plus its against the law that Ma pocket the rest of the funds instead of returning it like the law says.

The difference between Ma and Chen is that Ma has a lame excuse and there is evidence, while Chen’s problem is pretty much missing evidence that he says is for state secrets.

I’ve noticed the Pan Reds/Blues here suddenly going quiet. Are we going to get a multi-chain posting in which we just bash Chen or some other fun shenanigan?

46

[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]
I’ve noticed the Pan Reds/Blues here suddenly going quiet. [/quote]

Maybe they don’t work weekends. :smiley:

47

on weekends they are paid the double, no?

Maybe the funds needed to pay them are over… :laughing: :smiling_imp:

48

It seems easy for Ma to find a ‘fall guy’ … so he’s almost of the hook … Mr. Teflon Cleanhands …

49

You dont get to where Ma is without CYA measures for all contingencies. The clerk looks like the typical patsy, must be something Mayor Ma is holding over him.

50

This particular pan-Red is most certainly around, but as it happens for many of us, personal life often overwhelms “hobbies”. It happens to be a particularly busy few weeks with a record year at the company, a new project on the mainland, and a growing family (population: 2.5 at this point in time, for anyone counting at home)).

As far as Taiwan goes, seems to be situation normal to me. More political mud being slung around, with plenty of excuse-making on both sides. It’s all theatrics, with little meaningful action. Taiwan is just validating for me yet again that democracy inspires neither wisdom nor morality. The next meaningful act I’m watching for is the Kaohsiung/Taipei elections, and we’ll see what temporary path they set for Taiwan. If I have the time to spare, I’ll grab a seat and throw my own peanuts at the stage.

In other news, Taiwan’s economy continues to become irrelevant, while mainland China’s economic and political star continues to ascend. That’s the meaningful trend around which all others gravitate. To paraphrase a quote I read earlier today… Taiwan is both not far enough from mainland China, and not close enough to mainland China. Not far enough from mainland China to convincingly blaze an independent path, and not close enough to reunify as Hong Kong did.

After all the hand-wringing and spit flinging ends, Taiwan’s future will ultimately be determined by the gravity generated by mainland China.

51

cc,

I think you are at your peak. You really should write a book now. I mean it sincerely. “…democracy inspires neither wisdom nor morality.” That’s good stuff. Possibly a first use too. Sure there isn’t a high-pay desk job waiting for you in Beijing?

What’s your take on communism? Maybe we need a good democracy vs. communism thread. Should be a lark.

52

Ah, dearpeter, surely you don’t really mean to challenge my intellectual honesty on this point. I’ve been far more forthcoming than you’re ever likely to be.

Communism is dead; an idealized, pseudo-scientific “ultimate solution” for human society that has been proven to be impossible to sustain in a competitive world. Trying to centrally plan human society is no different than trying to plan the weather: you will be wrong; sometimes, you can be devastatingly wrong.

The Communist Party will likely die, and soon. It’s core ideology is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and it will disappear in a couple more decades at most. Its accomplishments will be fondly remembered by many, just as the accomplishments of many of our former dynasties are fondly remembered today. Its failed policies will be debated for centuries by intellectuals with little else to do. Mao Zedong will be rightly considered one of the most significant characters in Chinese history, with a space reserved in the pantheon alongside people like Qin Shihuang, Li Shimin, Kangxi, etc.

China and the Chinese will remain. That’s a certainty.

I, for one, hope that “Western democracy” does not take hold. I find the shameless, widely accepted lying that dominates campaign season to be distasteful… and in the long run, I find it hard to believe that this sort of institutionalized lying is anything to aspire to. But I certainly do appreciate certain “Western” institutions: a media with investigative rights, transparent government, and absolutely the rule of law.

I, for one, hope that socialism remains. I think socialism deserves a place in the Chinese consciousness alongside Confucianism. The “traditional” Confucianist part of me believes that it’s critical to devote myself to my studies, to respect my elders, to value stability… and have the highest standards for the next generation. The “socialist” part of me believes that I have a great responsibility to society at large; that my nation has a responsibility to set conditions that allows all of my fellow citizens to succeed, even if it comes at a personal cost to me; that my nation can not be successful unless all of us are successful. Socialism and nationalism is essentially about extending the scope of our traditional values from family, to nation and people.

I, for one, recognize that humanity at large does not share these values. The international system is exploitive and selfish. Decisions about international events are made on the basis of domestic interests and concerns. Nations will be invaded, surrendered, and destroyed all on the basis of domestic politics + leanings. China would be foolish to ever “rely” on international goodwill for her security and prosperity.

53

dfe

54

So did you rejoice over Milton Friedman’s death?

Seriously though. My comments were sincere. I just think, cc, you’ve been getting pretty poetic in your political visions lately. For me, that’s a good thing, though perhaps a BBS isn’t the optimum platform. I’d gladly participate in a pick cc’s brain thread.

I do think your perspective is shared by a whole lot of people. I’m quite fond myself of stating that China has a better system for choosing its leader than America does. But I would ask, why stop at nationalism and not project your loyalty to the whole globe? I suspect a lot of the prototypical Forumosans on this board have actually gone so far (although there are a lot of hardcore GOPDEMHEADS kicking around).

Applied to the Taiwan question, why ultimately does China need to “encompass” Taiwan anyway? What is the deep need to disrupt this island’s natural course of development, and feel free to start a new thread rather than replying here and pissing everyone off(?)

Gawd. Foreign journalists are probably reading this thread. Massive apologies.

55

And perhaps Taiwan circa 2006 is a beacon on the hill for “justice”? Or perhaps Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Mexico, Brazil are other ringing endorsements for this “justice”?

I’m not sure what “justice” means to you, but whatever it is those particular governments are offering to their citizens… I’ll pass.

On the other hand, the justice of an objective functioning legal system monitored by an independent media, the justice of a government that rules by expert consensus… that’s something I’d certainly welcome.

56

ddf

57

[quote=“almondcookie”]“democracy inspires neither wisdom nor morality”

i’m glad it doesn’t…because no political system should tread into the muddy and subjective waters of “wisdom” or “morality” - but justice, in their stead.

and dearpeter, please don’t encourage it.[/quote]

Exactly. Trust no system that relies on people’s good will or morality to work or that does not protect the minority from the majority’s morals

58

Well, I’m flattered dearpeter.

I don’t have answers. I just know that I’m fortunate to have been exposed to two contradictory world-views that I happen to both respect and find disgusting. There are many things in Western society that I find admirable, and many things that I find distasteful. There are many things in Chinese society that I find admirable, and many things I equally find distasteful.

But I like to fantasize as much as the next guy. What’s the ideal political system? Here are a few crazy ideas:

  • start by getting rid of campaign season; a system based around that elaborate theatrical production is no true democracy.

  • turn politics into a partnership, not a competition. If two candidates each receive ~50.0% of the popular vote, that means they have equal popularity, and either one should be equally acceptable. Instead, how many times have we seen the 50/50 elections become the most tightly contested, divisive elections…? Why should the “side” with 50%+1 votes be ecstatic, when the “side” with 50%-1 votes be devastated by the result? If 50% of my countrymen support any particular politician, then how bad can he truly be?

So, here’s a crazy solution: flip a coin. If its a 50/50 vote, flip a 50/50 coin. If it’s a 60/40 vote, flip a 60/40 coin. Let the winner rule for a year, and then flip again. Lying to get that extra 5000 votes all of a sudden seems less meaningful.

  • get rid of cult of personalities. I for one think our political leaders and political parties should be anonymous and interchangeable. Perhaps we should be electing officials on the basis of an anonymous white paper that they submit, along with a summary of their past accomplishments.

  • or, let’s get rid of politics entirely. I think everyone world wide agrees that all societies require a politically neutral bureaucracy that executes decisions from above, perhaps monitored by an independent media and legal system. The challenge of good government should be deciding what decisions and policies are implemented.

Here’s a suggestion: let’s have a political system similar to the jury-based legal system. Let’s randomly select a group of 50 anonymous (qualified) citizens for every policy decision, ranging from the major to the insignificant. Let’s make these citizens meet in private, in isolation for a year… where the positive and negative implications of each decision will be explained with the help of expert advice arguing the pro/con positions. And let’s let these 50 thoroughly informed, average citizens make a decision.

… but enough fantasizing. I don’t mind talking practical issues, either. What China needs today is not an experiment in political science. What China needs are well-trained lawyers/judges, and principled (financially independent!) journalists. Give us time while these are slowly pumped through the system, and everything will gradually begin to improve.

I made this point in talking about business a few months ago, but the same extends to the legal system. Do you realize that the most experienced judges in the Chinese legal system would’ve only received their legal degrees a couple decades ago? And that they came up through a legal vacuum, with absolutely no existing legal atmosphere to guide them in their action? Many judges in the Chinese legal system today have little more than a high school degree (or even less), but were pressed into service out of necessity. Journalists are in a similar situation. 90% of mainland journalists are probably under the age of 35, and lack the common sense and experience that only decades on the job will give them.

Mainland China needs another 30 years. Wait until the generation born in the '80s, college-educated and world-wise, have slowly spread through the system and begun to take up leadership roles in society. That’s when the Chinese society I want to see will begin to take form.

And what will China’s political system evolve into during this final act? I honestly don’t know. I’m not wise or gifted enough to guess what model will best serve the Chinese nation. But if the above evolution has occurred as I hoped, I’m hopeful my childrens’ generation will know the answer to that question.

59

cctang, you have some good ideals for China’s future, and I hope most of them will come through.
If the leading politicians in China does not start cleaning up their act soon, they will hopefully be purged by the legal system you are hoping for.

I want all politicians on all levels in Tiawan to be investigated for their handling of their slush funds, but I can not make up my mind if everyone found to have mishandled the fund should be kicked out of politics for ever (and give way for a new generation), or if they should be fogiven and all slush-funds should be immediatley terminated.

It would surprise me if the politicians handling of public funds in China is any better than what we now (finally) see here in Taiwan.

60

[quote=“cctang”]- turn politics into a partnership, not a competition. If two candidates each receive ~50.0% of the popular vote, that means they have equal popularity, and either one should be equally acceptable. Instead, how many times have we seen the 50/50 elections become the most tightly contested, divisive elections…? Why should the “side” with 50%+1 votes be ecstatic, when the “side” with 50%-1 votes be devastated by the result? If 50% of my countrymen support any particular politician, then how bad can he truly be?

So, here’s a crazy solution: flip a coin. If its a 50/50 vote, flip a 50/50 coin. If it’s a 60/40 vote, flip a 60/40 coin. Let the winner rule for a year, and then flip again. Lying to get that extra 5000 votes all of a sudden seems less meaningful.[/quote]
I like this point. Instead of a winner-take-all system why not make them work together or give them each 1/2 of the decision-making power. Something like that…

Ha ha… I remember a public service broadcast spot in the US many, many years ago (remember when they actually used to try to further public education about issues such as the environment, etc… ? That was before lawyers and pharmaceutical companies took over…). It suggested that if 2 leaders disagree with each other - let 'em fight it out between themselves and leave everybody else out of it. It’s a great idea! My money is on Putin over Bush as he knows judo…!!