Cheng Chung-mo's (
At least that is the sincere hope of those of us who are getting worn down by the around-the-clock sensational media coverage of the story. However, among all the gossip and hearsay disguised by the media as "serious news" in this latest saga, there has been insufficient discussion of why Cheng should step down.
If the real justification for demanding Cheng's resignation isn't stressed, the point of his departure would seem to be lost in the tide of useless information the media is feeding the public about the story.
Without question, Cheng's decision to step down was the right one and absolutely necessary. When the local Chinese-language media initially published pictures of him entering the motel with a young woman, if he had immediately declared his decision to resign, it would have been the correct choice. Waiting a few days before finally succumbing to public pressure diminishes Cheng's standing.
Cheng had to resign because he had tarnished the credibility and the image of the Counsel of Grand Justices, as well as the Judicial Yuan vice. Had he remained in his posts, the tasteless jokes and speculation would have lingered on, diminishing the image of the institutions. The damage to the trustworthiness of these two institutions, which are supposed to be embodiments of law and justice, would be too great.
Even if Cheng was telling the truth, and that the woman was indeed suffering a stomach ache and needed to use the bathroom of the motel, he should still resign. Entering a motel room with a young woman alone by itself is highly improper precisely because it raises too much speculation about the real reason behind the act.
Having said that, it should be pointed out that there were no real legal grounds to ask Cheng to resign. Entering a motel room with a woman is not illegal and nothing else can be proved to have happened. In the absence of legal reasons, Cheng's resignation was a moral and ethical issue -- that is, he had sufficient conscience to save the Council of Grand Justices and the Judicial Yuan vice from further public mockery. Chen's resignation was an act of self-sacrifice in this regard. From a member of the Council of Grand Justices, people rightfully demand higher moral and ethical standards.
Cheng's resignation should end the controversy. He and the woman in question should be left alone. Whatever their relationship, it is strictly private and a personal matter of the parties involved.
Unfortunately, there are some members of the Legislative Yuan who seem to be having far too much fun with the whole issue and don't want it to end too soon. Some of them are even saying that there should be an investigation into whether Cheng told the truth and into the exact nature of the relationship between Cheng and the woman. That would be taking things too far. One cannot help but ask why the Legislative Yuan does not demand of itself half of what it demands from Cheng.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS