Former Branch Director Suspected of Long-term Bribery; Control Yuan Corrects High Bureau for Mechanism Failure
The Control Yuan has corrected the High Bureau (高速公路局) for its failed oversight mechanism regarding former branch director Lai Rong-jun's long-term bribery. Lai was impeached for receiving 8.23 million NTD in bribes and misusing contractors' personnel. The bureau was also criticized for allowing Lai's reinstatement after the scandal broke.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 24, 2026 at 16:50
- 🔍 Collected: April 24, 2026 at 17:02 (11 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 24, 2026 at 18:27 (1h 25m after Collected)
Central Message
(CNA Reporter Lai Yu-yu, Taipei, 24th) Former branch director of the Ministry of Transportation's High Bureau, Lai Rong-jun, was impeached unanimously by the Control Yuan in March for long-term bribery. Recently, the Control Yuan also passed a correction against the High Bureau for its failed mechanism. Investigating member Tsai Chung-yi stated through a press release today that the High Bureau's internal procurement and supervision mechanisms existed in name only. Allowing Lai's reinstatement after the case broke has severely damaged the government's reputation for integrity.
The Changhua District Prosecutors' Office discovered in 2022 that Lai Rong-jun was suspected of receiving bribes from construction companies and indicted him on charges including bribery in breach of duty. The Ministry of Transportation subsequently canceled Lai's status as a 2015 Model Civil Servant. In March, the Control Yuan passed the impeachment proposal, sending Lai to the Disciplinary Court for trial, citing serious misconduct including receiving 8.23 million NTD in bribes, leaking secret procurement information, and utilizing contractors' dispatched personnel for private funds.
Control Yuan members Tsai Chung-yi, Wang Yu-ling, and Yeh Yi-jin pointed out via a press release today that on the 14th, the Control Yuan passed a correction stating that the High Bureau's internal procurement and supervision mechanisms were virtually non-existent. Furthermore, allowing Lai to resume work after the incident hit the government's integrity reputation hard, demanding the High Bureau conduct a thorough review and improvement.
Members stated that the High Bureau had long taken shortcuts by including 'public works operation fees' in engineering contracts, directly requiring winning bidders to provide 'dispatched personnel' to assist with administrative affairs within the agency, and stipulating that personnel must not refuse assignments. This practice severely violated the spirit of the Government Procurement Act by allowing contractors access to secrets within the agency. Lai exploited this loophole, treating dispatched personnel as private secretaries, instructing them on 11 occasions to carry cash to banks for deposits and remittances, severely blurring the line between public and private and rendering internal supervision useless.
Regarding the power to approve base prices, members believed it was excessively concentrated in the head of the office alone. The High Bureau's branches allowed branch directors absolute power over base price approval without establishing an objective and independent 'Base Price Review Committee' for substantive review. This allowed Lai to manipulate the process, leaking and inflating prices according to the needs of colluding bidders. Among 30 bid-rigging cases, 12 saw the final award amount exactly match the base price after price reduction, while others precisely hit over 98% of the base price, indicating serious leakage and manipulation of base price information.
Members mentioned that although Lai's long-term bribery was indicted with clear evidence, the High Bureau's Merit and Discipline Committee decided on only 'one major demerit' by a disparity of 13 votes to 1, instead of dismissal. Subsequently, the High Bureau was passive in exercising 'prior suspension' authority and instead allowed Lai to resume work, even arranging for him to serve as 'Chief Engineer' at headquarters. Such 'mutual protection of officials' (officials protecting each other) has severely damaged the morale of civil servants. (Editor: Lin Hsing-meng) 1150424
(CNA Reporter Lai Yu-yu, Taipei, 24th) Former branch director of the Ministry of Transportation's High Bureau, Lai Rong-jun, was impeached unanimously by the Control Yuan in March for long-term bribery. Recently, the Control Yuan also passed a correction against the High Bureau for its failed mechanism. Investigating member Tsai Chung-yi stated through a press release today that the High Bureau's internal procurement and supervision mechanisms existed in name only. Allowing Lai's reinstatement after the case broke has severely damaged the government's reputation for integrity.
The Changhua District Prosecutors' Office discovered in 2022 that Lai Rong-jun was suspected of receiving bribes from construction companies and indicted him on charges including bribery in breach of duty. The Ministry of Transportation subsequently canceled Lai's status as a 2015 Model Civil Servant. In March, the Control Yuan passed the impeachment proposal, sending Lai to the Disciplinary Court for trial, citing serious misconduct including receiving 8.23 million NTD in bribes, leaking secret procurement information, and utilizing contractors' dispatched personnel for private funds.
Control Yuan members Tsai Chung-yi, Wang Yu-ling, and Yeh Yi-jin pointed out via a press release today that on the 14th, the Control Yuan passed a correction stating that the High Bureau's internal procurement and supervision mechanisms were virtually non-existent. Furthermore, allowing Lai to resume work after the incident hit the government's integrity reputation hard, demanding the High Bureau conduct a thorough review and improvement.
Members stated that the High Bureau had long taken shortcuts by including 'public works operation fees' in engineering contracts, directly requiring winning bidders to provide 'dispatched personnel' to assist with administrative affairs within the agency, and stipulating that personnel must not refuse assignments. This practice severely violated the spirit of the Government Procurement Act by allowing contractors access to secrets within the agency. Lai exploited this loophole, treating dispatched personnel as private secretaries, instructing them on 11 occasions to carry cash to banks for deposits and remittances, severely blurring the line between public and private and rendering internal supervision useless.
Regarding the power to approve base prices, members believed it was excessively concentrated in the head of the office alone. The High Bureau's branches allowed branch directors absolute power over base price approval without establishing an objective and independent 'Base Price Review Committee' for substantive review. This allowed Lai to manipulate the process, leaking and inflating prices according to the needs of colluding bidders. Among 30 bid-rigging cases, 12 saw the final award amount exactly match the base price after price reduction, while others precisely hit over 98% of the base price, indicating serious leakage and manipulation of base price information.
Members mentioned that although Lai's long-term bribery was indicted with clear evidence, the High Bureau's Merit and Discipline Committee decided on only 'one major demerit' by a disparity of 13 votes to 1, instead of dismissal. Subsequently, the High Bureau was passive in exercising 'prior suspension' authority and instead allowed Lai to resume work, even arranging for him to serve as 'Chief Engineer' at headquarters. Such 'mutual protection of officials' (officials protecting each other) has severely damaged the morale of civil servants. (Editor: Lin Hsing-meng) 1150424