A few days ago, the Taipei District Court ruled against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in a lawsuit brought against him by former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) for his talk of a "failed attempt at a coup d'etat" and a "soft coup" in the aftermath of last year's presidential election.
Lien and Soong had demanded that Chen publish apologies in local newspapers and pay each of them NT$1 in symbolic damages. The reason given for the verdict was that the presidency is a national institution regulated by the Constitution, and as such, the president does not enjoy freedom of speech. The verdict has opened a legal debate as to whether the president should enjoy this right. This is not, however, a freedom of speech issue, but rather a matter of whether or not Chen, as the president, had the responsibility to make his view of the political situation at the time known and request that the public consider it.
The passage of time must not make us forget the seriousness of the situation at the time. There really were people who wanted to incite a coup d'etat. Whether or not they succeeded is beside the point. A "coup d'etat" is when a group of people or clique use military or political means to bring about a sudden change in a nation's political leadership. The violent mass protests that occurred in the wake of last year's presidential election were an attempt to bring about not only sudden political change, but a revolution. Then PFP legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) shouted in public that "the horn of revolution is calling" while leading charges on state institutions in a public call for violent revolution. Some other politicians called on the army to step up, and that is a call for a coup d'etat.
Taking another look at the US government's congratulatory telegram makes the issue clearer still. The telegram praises the Taiwanese public for relying on existing legal structures to resolve differences of opinion while rejecting extra-legal options and violence that would have put democratic principles at risk. This was aimed at the above mentioned methods which sought to spark a coup d'etat.
When the US' congratulatory telegram arrived, China had already issued a statement saying that it would not sit idly by if the situation in Taiwan spun out of control and deteriorated into social turmoil endangering the safety and property of Taiwanese compatriots, as well as peace in the Taiwan Strait.
In case someone is still unclear on the relationship between this statement and the protests, Lien's talk about joining hands with China to suppress Taiwan independence during his tributary mission to Beijing a year later should dispel any remaining doubts.
It is clear that joining hands with Beijing to suppress Taiwan independence is yet another extra-legal measure. It begins as a political measure, but once China undertakes military exercises or invades Taiwan, it has turned into a military measure. This also explains why the US paid such close attention to Lien and Soong's use of extra-legal methods.
Regardless of whether they actually tried to bring about a coup d'etat, their aim was to provide the conditions required for a Chinese invasion. We should be glad that pan-blue supporters were brought back to their senses by the Chinese Communist Party's intervention and the US' warnings instead of continuing to follow the lead of Lien and Soong.
The fact that the arms procurement bill still hasn't been passed, however, is yet another manifestation of the attempt to join hands with China to suppress Taiwan independence. KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Chen's statements were thus absolutely correct, and a warning of sorts. The general public is owed a clear explanation as to why legal action has not been taken against concerned individuals or why they have not been disciplined. It is precisely because such action has not been taken that the issue of right and wrong has become blurred, and this has given these individuals a chance to strike back.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS