It is perhaps no coincidence that the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office chose to release its decision to formally indict first lady Wu Shu-jen (
President Chen Shui-bian (
Nevertheless, fears about the potential impact of the indictments on the economy and political stability could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The moment of truth will come tomorrow morning.
The festive mood seen after the indictments were handed down was at least partially prompted by the realization of the strength of the nation's judicial system.
For those who have continued to refuse to accept investigators' findings in regards to the assassination attempt on the president and Vice President Annette Lu (
According to the indictment issued by prosecutor Eric Chen (陳瑞仁) on Friday, Chen and Wu embezzled approximately NT$15 million (US$455,500) from the State Affairs Fund allocated to the Presidential Office. The prosecutor found that, although portions of the fund were used for legitimate reasons, the fact that some receipts were borrowed from other people for reimbursement purposes constituted forgery.
From the very beginning, the president has not denied the use of borrowed receipts to obtain reimbursements from the State Affairs Fund. However, he claimed that the money from the fund was spent on legitimate foreign affairs and missions for which secrecy needed to be maintained, necessitating the use of the borrowed receipts.
After reading the indictment, it seems that Eric Chen is genuinely dealing with this case purely on the basis of evidence and standing by the letter of the law. For instance, whether the use of borrowed receipts to obtain reimbursement for money spent on legitimate secret missions constitutes criminal forgery was a topic of debate during the investigation.
No one denies that the law as written does not make an exception for secret missions. Thus, whether an exception should be made is not a legal question, but a political question. Hence, Eric Chen has followed the letter of the law and indicted the suspects for forgery instead of for illegally dipping into the State Affairs Fund.
Nevertheless, the public is more concerned with the illegal use of the fund than with the issue of borrowed receipts. If the president and first lady indeed spent the money for legitimate reasons ? as the president has repeatedly claimed -- he is due political forgiveness. Although the president may still have to face criminal prosecution for forgery, this is a matter of legal technicality and a blow that can be endured.
The prosecutor's investigation suggests that the president did not use the fund for the legitimate purposes that he has claimed, which is the real issue here. To be more precise, the prosecutor found that four out of the six secret missions for which the president had claimed reimbursement were non-existent.
After the indictment was released, the president reportedly called at least one meeting with Democratic Progressive Party leaders to explain that he did not feel at liberty to divulge much information about the secret missions, which caused the prosecutor to doubt the existence of the missions.
With so much at stake for the nation, President Chen must make his case. If he is telling the truth, he needs to provide proof immediately.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS