Only one day after President Chen Shui-bian
In the aftermath of the controversy, an important question remains: Can and should the president sue a newspaper?
With respect to the "can" part of the question, it seems hard to come up with any reasons why the president cannot sue. Presumably, the rights to sue and be sued are inseparable, since right necessarily come with corresponding obligations. So, the president's legal immunity -- or lack of it -- should offer insight on the "can" question, since the Constitution is silent in that regard.
Article 52 of the Constitution states that the president is immune from criminal prosecution, unless he is charged with the crime of treason or rebellion or otherwise recalled or relieved from his presidential functions.
While this establishes presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, what about immunity from civil lawsuits? The Constitution does not say. However, strong arguments can be made for immunity from civil lawsuits over official actions.
But what about civil lawsuits over actions taken by the president entirely in his private capacity? It seems that here the president does not enjoy absolute immunity. If that is true, why can't he also sue others -- including the news media -- in his private capacity and over matters unrelated to his official presidential duties?
Surely, the alleged donation is unrelated to Chen's presidential duties, since the whole thing took place before Chen became president.
Of course, there are those who would ask, "Shouldn't Chen have waited until after he stepped down from office to file the lawsuit?" That way, he would have avoided giving the impression of an all- powerful president crushing a member of the media and trampling on press freedom.
The argument is not without force. This is in fact the "should" question: Should the president file the lawsuit, even if he is entitled to do so?
The answer is that such action should be seen as an extreme measure to be reserved for for extraordinary circumstances.
Have things come to the point of requiring such extreme measures? The answer, sadly, yes.
Anyone who disagrees will probably change his or her mind when reminded about the fiascos concerning sexual harassment allegations against Department of Health acting head Twu Shiing-jer
If a politician, or any other person for that matter, had to wait for years before being able to clear his or her name through lawsuits, the injury to the person would become irreparable. That hardly seems fair.
On the brighter, if even the president chooses to turn to the judiciary to clear his name -- rather than treating the matter as a private vendetta to be settled clandestinely -- a mature democracy is at hand.
Of course, had the general public been more trusting of the judiciary independence of this country, then perhaps the president's action would have been greeted with less skepticism. Therefore, the government must work harder to earn that trust.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing