Even before the Taiwan High Court on Dec. 30 rejected the opposition camp's lawsuit to nullify last year's presidential election, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) knew in their hearts that they were destined to lose the case.
If they really had thought they'd win the lawsuit, a re-election would have been possible and the whole situation might have been reversed. But, in that case, why would Lien publicly announce that he would resign his chairmanship in August for the sake of the KMT's "alternation of generations?" Soong's statement was even more clear: he said after the legislative elections that the Lien-Soong ticket had not won.
It was not surprising that the two lawsuits filed by the opposition camp -- to nullify the election result and nullify the election itself -- were both rejected. Lien and Soong also understand that although they have decided to appeal, they are employing a meaningless delay tactic.
The significance of the first lawsuit is that the ticket of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) remained slightly ahead of the Lien-Soong ticket after judicial agencies re-counted all the votes.
As for the second lawsuit, it clarified some of the opposition camp's accusations -- such as the legality of holding a referendum on the same day as another national election -- something considered illegal under Article 17 of the Referendum Law (公投法). Blue camp lawyers also argued that the launch of the so-called national security mechanism prevented many police an military personnel from voting -- a group widely regarded to be pro-blue.
But most importantly, lawyers for Lien and Soong attacked the judicial system as being unfair when the court made the first ruling on Nov. 4, before the legislative elections. They also claimed the timing of the ruling was a result of the government's political interference. Additionally, they claimed the court purposely ruled on the first case earlier, in which the blue camp was in an unfavorable position, rather than the second case, which was more favorable to them.
But, now the rulings of the two cases have been given, and Lien and Soong have lost them both. Whether or not the KMT and PFP are willing to accept this, the Taiwanese people, as well as the world, have finally seen the truth.
The KMT and PFP made every effort to win the second case. Their lawyers even played a legal trick by withdrawing the case temporarily, in an attempt to choose judges who are pro-blue. But the court is not operated by the blue camp. If they thought they could return to the past, when the KMT was able to manipulate the court, perhaps it is now time for them to face reality. The fact is, the Lien-Soong ticket was indeed defeated in a presidential election that is now proven to have been fair and legal.
Do Lien and Soong really want the words "bad losers" to be etched into the epitaphs on their political gravestones? They have refused to admit defeat, not only in the election but also in the lawsuits. On Dec. 30, KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng (林豐正) said during a press conference that judicial justice no longer exists, and that the five-branch Constitution has died.
By taking the judicial system as their object of death, Lien and Soong succeed only in making their epitaphs more disgraceful, and the demise of the KMT regime more miserable.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of the Contemporary Monthly magazine and a national policy adviser to the president.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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