Today the Taiwan High Court begins its hearing of a lawsuit filed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against President Chen Shui-bian (
However, the question of who should pay the enormous costs associated with the judicial recount remains unsettled. Since the dispute is being handled through existing legal mechanisms, the answer to that question should of course have a legal and judicial basis.
It is not surprising that the KMT-People First Party (PFP) alliance is asking that the government pay the costs -- which are estimated to approach several hundred million NT dollars. This is because the recount is going to be an enormous project in which all 1,600 judges in the country as well as countless others will have to work intensely so the job can be finished in one day.
While it is unlikely that the KMT can't afford the bill -- it is still the richest political party on earth -- the KMT is of course reluctant to admit that it can pay, considering that during the campaign Chen proposed forcing it to return to the government and the people the money it embezzled.
But an even more important question is this: Is it right to have the government pay for this?
The Judicial Yuan doesn't think so. Judicial Yuan Civil Department Director Yang Lung-shun (
The most obvious rationale for this is to prevent frivolous lawsuits which could place undue burdens on the judicial system and waste judicial resources. Facing the possibility of having to pay expensive bills upon losing a lawsuit, plaintiffs will only seek a judicial remedy if they genuinely believe based on the evidence that their charges against the defendant can withstand judicial examination -- that is, if the defendant really did what the plaintiffs accuse him or her of doing.
Hasn't the KMT-PFP alliance said that it has received hundreds of tips from the public, along with loads of other evidence, indicating that the Democratic Progressive Party illegally tampered with the election and that the pan-blue camp is confident of winning the lawsuit? If all that is true, what is there for the KMT and PFP to fear?
Besides, the Judicial Yuan's ruling is a knife that could cut both ways -- meaning the DPP will have to pick up the tab if it loses the recount.
Could it be that the KMT-PFP alliance is not at all sure of the merits of its lawsuit? Is it possible that the pan-blue camp realizes that the DPP's extremely small winning margin -- 0.228 percent -- does not indicate any wrongdoing by the DPP, but rather that the nation simply had a very close election?
Finally, the KMT-PFP alliance should be reminded that at least 50 percent of the population -- namely, those who voted for Chen -- believe that the president has done nothing illegal. Is it fair to ask them to pay for the judicial recount?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry