Moreover, the court characterized assistant fees as essentially a subsidy for legislators to be “flexibly allocated” at their discretion, so it did not constitute corruption. Therefore, I concluded, they ruled that the only offense committed was causing a public official to make false entries in public documents. Exasperated, my neighbor asked that if the money is for legislators anyway, why not just be open about it all? After the High Court’s ruling, which reinterpreted the purpose of assistant fees, the public realized what game was being played. The very same assistant budget system that was originally designed to safeguard public funds has now been redefined by the interpretation of a few individual judges.

Source: Taipei Times December 26, 2025 16:22 UTC