In the novel Les Miserables, the hero, just out of prison, steals a silver candelabra from a church and is caught red-handed by police. In order to save the young man from a lifetime behind bars, the church clergy gives false testimony to the police, saying the candelabra was a gift from the church. One compassionate thought from the clerics saved the young man from the fate of imprisonment. If not for the help from the church, the young man would not have been acquitted.
There are only two ways for the hero to be acquitted: one is for the owner of the stolen property to testify that it was a gift. The other is for the hero to produce evidence showing that it was a gift. It would be farcical for the hero to ask the church to produce evidence that it was not a gift.
Currently a joke that would not even appear in fiction is taking place in Taiwan. In order to escape charges of misappropriation, James Soong (
Quickly running short of tricks, the Soong camp has now come up with a new card: New Party legislator Hsieh Chi-ta's (
Hsieh said the president cannot used words like "May the gods shorten your life (夭壽)," or "nonsense" (一派胡言). But while she was demanding Lee to "swallow" his words, she was at the same time telling Lee to "shut up" and even used the word "bastard" (混蛋).
Even more serious was the fact that a lawmaker and former judge does not know that she must respect the governmental system of the country.
During the meetings on constitutional amendments, the Taiwan Independence Party and the DPP both strongly recommended a presidential system with three branches of government. But the KMT old guard used many different tactics to resist this, insisting on maintaining the five-branch system under the current Constitution, setting the "control power" -- which includes impeachment, censure, and audit -- independently outside the legislative branch. The legislature has none of these powers. Therefore, as a lawmaker, Hsieh has no business to be involved in an investigation.
Under the ROC's current system, investigating the Ministry of Finance is in the remit of the Control Yuan, while the investigation of banks and other financial institutions is an administrative power. No lawmaker has the right to interfere in these affairs. Under the current policy, the legislature enacts laws and makes policies, while the Executive Yuan takes care of administrative work. Also, the responsibility to supervise the administration lies with the Control Yuan.
In this light, Hsieh, who belongs to the KMT's old guard, is violating the very system the old guard has been adamantly insisting on. Fortunately, the finance ministry did help maintain the old KMT's five-branch system by refusing to sanction her investigation. If Hsieh is so keen on investigative power, why did she not participate in the promotion of the three-branch system adopted by most modern countries?
Under this system, the legislature is responsible for legislation and policy-making, while the administration takes care of implementing those laws and policies. The legislative branch cannot interfere in the administration, but it can use impeachment and audit powers to supervise the administration. If the violations committed by the administration involve legal issues, then they are handled by the judicial branch. Otherwise, they are supervised by the legislature through audit and impeachment powers. Only then can a well-rounded system be maintained.
Driven by ideology, the KMT old guard insistently opposed the three-branch system. However, when the same three-branch system proves advantageous to them, they use it as a tool to their own ends.
Soong, supported by the KMT's old guard, also has an "I-am-the-system" kind of idea. To "besiege" Lin Yang-kang (林洋港), he set up a system of having all KMT representatives from all of Taiwan vote to choose the party's presidential candidate. Now that the system has proved disadvantageous to him, he is going against the system he himself has set up.
I do not know what the outcome will be when such a "man with no system" wants to be president.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor at National Sun Yat-sen University.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with