Looking at Friday's hearing in the pan-blues' case to annul the presidential election it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry. This was the election losers' chance to explain what was wrong with the election. Their argument was that President Chen Shui-bian (
After the past three months, nobody in Taiwan needs a background in constitutional or electoral law to see what is wrong with this argument. Even grade-school kids know by now that the Presidential Election and Recall Law mandates that an election can only be postponed if one of the candidates is killed. So the basis of the pan-blues case on Friday was that the election should be annulled because the Central Election Commission had followed the law.
One of the great ironies about this is that immediately after the shooting on the afternoon of March 19, the pan-blues' stated fear was that the shooting might be used as a pretext to call the election off. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
It was interesting to see what evidence the pan-blues provided for their claim that Chen's shooting had significantly influenced the election. This evidence was two polls, one conducted by the notoriously pro-pan-blue, pro-China TVBS, and another conducted by Lien's think tank. Could this have been just the tiniest bit lacking in objectivity?
The pan-blue counsel, unable to answer such simple questions from the presiding judge as what the legal grounds for their complaint were, also tried to sidetrack and say the election had been influenced by Article 17 of the Referendum Law. Somehow the pan-blues wanted to claim that this law, which had allowed the president to call a referendum on the same day as the election, somehow was unfair to the pan-blues' candidates. The judge had to point out that the Referendum Law was passed by the pan-blues themselves, so they could hardly complain about its provisions.
But beyond the laughter that the wretchedness of the pan-blues' case engenders, there should be some anger. The pan-blue case has been shown to be absolutely without merit. Not even the most basic regard has been paid to the law governing the events concerning which the case has been brought, as the claim against the Central Election Commission shows. So why is the case continuing?
The courts are not duty-bound to listen to the bizarre allegations of any diseased mind. They are in fact supposed first to decide if there is a case to answer. In every court appearance the pan-blues have failed to show that there is such a case. They should be presented with an ultimatum: Establish the basis of your case in the next session or have it thrown out of court.
As for the pan-blue lawyers, they have come to court totally unprepared, perhaps because they know the case they plead is unpleadable. They should be reminded of their obligations under the Attorney Regulation Act (律師法), which defines them first and foremost as public servants whose duty it is to uphold the judicial system's integrity. According to the act, attorneys may not engage in "baseless lawsuits," and the pan-blues' case is beginning to look like a textbook definition of this term. Smart attorneys would be wondering if this case, far from seeking redress for supposed violations of the nation's laws, might instead be making them the violators.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs