Summer Chen Column: Zhuo Rongtai's 'Three Nos' Are Despicable—Why Should He Earn a High Salary?

KMT at-large legislator Weng Hsiao-ling is absolutely right! The Lai-Zhuo administration has achieved nothing in two years. 'Zhuo Rongtai is already an unqualified and derelict Premier. He refuses to co-sign laws, fails to execute laws, does not legally compile budgets, and does not nominate key personnel. He claims to uphold constitutionalism while actually violating the Constitution and disrupting governance.' Not only that, but after the massive recall failure, Zhuo remains unchanged. Despite eight failed veto overrides, he neither accepts responsibility nor resigns. In the recent carcinogenic oil scandal, he refuses to apologize or take responsibility.

However, Weng Hsiao-ling’s proposal to freeze Zhuo’s salary for four months is three parts right and seven parts wrong—an inappropriate principle. The KMT caucus further proposed completely deleting Zhuo’s four-month special allowance and the Executive Yuan’s operational budget, 'hoping to correct his governance attitude.' This cannot be called wrong, but it is overly naive and thus also mistaken.

Weng Hsiao-ling is right in her criticism but not necessarily in her actions—salaries are legally protected mandatory expenditures. According to the Budget Act, if the Legislative Yuan fails to pass the central government’s total budget by the legal deadline, new programs require legislative approval before disbursement. However, continuing programs and legally mandated expenditures (such as personnel costs, statutorily allocated social welfare subsidies, and insurance subsidies) may still be executed based on actual needs. Simply put, under the spirit of the Budget Act, even if the Legislative Yuan slashes the government budget left and right, civil servants’ salaries cannot be cut. Not only can they not be cut, but even if the budget is not passed, the government must still legally pay salaries. Beyond the Budget Act, civil servants are legally protected. Their salary basis comes from the Civil Servants Pay Act and the 'Guidelines for Payment of Salaries for National Military, Civil, and Educational Personnel,' paid monthly—clearly falling under the government’s 'legally mandated expenditures.'

Some argue that Weng’s proposal only 'freezes' rather than 'deletes' the salary, thus not violating the Budget Act. Once Premier Zhuo changes his attitude and submits a special report, funds could be released. However, going four months without a salary violates the spirit of 'national protection.' Others note that Zhuo Rongtai is a politically appointed official, not a career civil servant. True, but even political appointees’ 'salaries and allowances' are statutorily mandated and legally protected. Moreover, the power to appoint or dismiss the Premier lies with the President, not the Legislative Yuan, which should not use salary as political leverage.

Yet, do not mock or insult Weng Hsiao-ling as 'legally illiterate.' Similar proposals to 'freeze political appointees’ salaries and special allowances' were previously made by DPP legislators! During the tainted oil scandal, DPP legislators proposed freezing former Health and Welfare Minister Chiu Wen-ta’s salary and special allowance. The bill hadn’t even passed when Chiu resigned. In contrast, during the current CTBC carcinogenic oil scandal, President Lai Qingde eats fried meat balls, Premier Zhuo refuses to apologize, and Shih Chong-liang likely won’t resign. The KMT’s July 25 'anti-toxic oil' rally—how much pressure it can exert on the Lai administration remains uncertain.

Lai Qingde once proposed cutting executive special allowances—bipartisan fear of 'political karma'

Examples of freezing or deleting special allowances exist on both sides. In 2005, KMT legislator Chiang Lien-fu argued that the Executive Yuan’s special allowance far exceeded those of the other four branches, violating the constitutional principle of five-branch equality. Deputy Premier Wu Jung-i,兼任 the Central and Southern Joint Service Center, received three special allowances, violating social justice. His proposal sought to delete special allowances for the Premier, Vice Premier,政务委员, Secretaries-General, and directors of the Central-Southern Office and Executive Office—totaling an 8 million cut. At the time, the ruling party held a minority (‘small ruling, large opposition’), and the vote failed—KMT and PFP legislators didn’t support it.

In 2009, DPP legislators questioned why the Premier had a special allowance while the Executive Yuan also budgeted 9 million for 'administrative contingency funds,' calling it double-dipping. Executive Yuan Secretary-General Lin Jung-sen defended it, saying the contingency fund was for rewarding officials during inspections and administrative liaison. Still, DPP legislators proposed cutting 1.26 million from the special allowance. That legislator? None other than current President Lai Qingde. The DPP was in the minority then, so the vote failed. Both special and contingency allowances remained.

These cases show that using executive salaries or special allowances as political leverage is common to both parties—but not wise. Not because it’s necessarily illegal, but because 'political karma' always hits faster and harder than expected. The DPP being labeled 'double-standard party' isn’t baseless. Every move KMT legislators make today, the DPP has done before—and louder, more self-righteously.

Learning from the DPP, unless the KMT is certain it will never return to power or reorganize a cabinet, such tactics—cutting or freezing executive salaries and allowances—will inevitably 'rebound' onto the KMT itself in the foreseeable future.

When the legislature 'uniformly cuts,' ministries 'uniformly increase'—'one draft, fifteen cuts' is inevitable

The only successful 'freeze' occurred last year during the budget review, when the President’s state affairs contingency fund was cut by 20 million and 10 million frozen. President’s Office Secretary-General Pan Men-an sent a letter to staff 'apologizing,' stating that due to the freeze and deletion, 'staff holiday bonuses would be canceled.' Ironically, upon release, frontline civil servants were stunned—no one had ever received 'holiday bonuses.' Some even praised, 'The Legislative Yuan cut well!' Perhaps due to such grassroots reactions, Weng Hsiao-ling confidently proposed freezing Premier Zhuo’s salary. She knows the controversy over freezing personnel expenses but deeply feels the blue camp supporters’ anger over the ineffectiveness of checks and balances against the Lai administration. Her proposal is an outlet for the 'dismantle the Lai-Zhuo government' sentiment. Hence, the KMT caucus doubled down by deleting four months of special and operational fees—exactly what the DPP once proposed.

Don’t think Weng Hsiao-ling is slashing recklessly. She is extremely serious about her budget review proposals. DPP legislators mock her 'one draft, fifteen cuts,' accusing her of 'copy-pasting justifications carelessly.' In fact, it’s the DPP legislators who lack budget understanding. Weng’s proposals all share a common rationale: 'The government must live within its means, conserve public funds, reduce non-essential, non-urgent expenditures to ease fiscal burdens and reduce debt passed to future generations.' 'Excessive' budgeting may sound harsh, but 'over-budgeting' to counter expected legislative cuts is a long-standing administrative practice, especially post-democratization. The reason is simple: the legislature loves 'uniform cuts,' so agencies respond with 'uniform increases' as backup.

'Open to public scrutiny' ≠ 'No controversy'—backlash will inevitably hit the KMT

Weng Hsiao-ling provides full explanations for her proposed cuts and freezes, even listing her reduction principles: using the past three years’ 'actual expenditure / final accounts' execution rate as a benchmark. Items with low execution rates, large surpluses, and continued increases—like Academia Sinica’s 'commission fees,' unused for three consecutive years yet budgeted and increased from 200,000 to 7.74 million, now 9.34 million—why not cut? Her proposal to cut 90% of Director Chen Chien-jen’s special allowance argues Academia Sinica is not a 'central patronage retirement home.' For Chen, deeply involved in politics and party activities, this is unavoidable embarrassment. He must now work harder to convince legislators he can truly uphold academic neutrality upon returning to Academia Sinica.

Weng claims she submitted over 270 budget reduction proposals, 'each with solid evidence, open to public scrutiny.' This may not be false, but 'open to public scrutiny' does not mean 'no controversy.' After two years of partisan conflict, national fatigue is high. Blaming one side more than the other is pointless—blue and green camps each have supporters, and the divide is deep and hard to heal. The KMT and Weng Hsiao-ling must remind themselves: (1) With blue-white majority, passing proposals is likely—avoid last year’s chaos of thousands of cuts making budget reconciliation impossible. (2) These proposals, especially targeting Premier Zhuo, won’t change his posture before the year-end election cabinet reshuffle—he’ll leave only his back to the legislature. (3) Though these cuts target the DPP government, the backlash from every proposal will ultimately hit the KMT, should it return to power.