Last Friday, prosecutors indicted first lady Wu Shu-jen (
There is no question that the indictment not only shocked Taiwan, but also took the overseas Chinese community by surprise. What does the indictment mean? And how should we view the indictment? I think that the issue can be looked at from at least five perspectives.
First, the fact that the prosecutor could indict the first lady is a success for Taiwan's judicial system and democracy. The prosecutor clearly stated that the investigation was conducted without any outside pressure. This pressure, of course, could only have come from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The prosecutor said that President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration had not intervened or interfered in the investigation at any stage of the process, which is laudable for a new democracy.
No matter how incomplete Taiwan's judicial system may be, the fact that the prosecutor could fulfill his duty without political pressure and launch a judicial investigation into a case involving the first lady and top presidential aides has highlighted the fact that Taiwan has developed into a society where everyone is equal before the law.
This is something that the people of Taiwan, who have lived under the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) "do-as-they-please" regime, should be pleased at and proud of.
Second, this respect for the independence and fairness of the judicial system has set a good precedent for the principle that everyone is equal before the law. The next step for Taiwan will now be to abide by the principle of presumed innocence -- the most important legal concept.
In other words, merely being accused is not the same as being found guilty. Therefore, so long as Wu and the accused presidential aides have not been deemed guilty by a court of law, they should be regarded as innocent.
Given that Taiwan was ruled by a dictatorial despotic government for more than half a century, there is a general lack of a understanding of the presumption of innocence. This is why we saw two presidential recall motions in the legislature and a third one already underway before the judicial system commenced legal proceedings, as well as social unrest and street demonstrations.
An indictment is a judicial issue, whereas a recall motion is a political issue. The decision by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) to propose a third recall motion before the conclusion of the "state affairs fund" case on the very day that the prosecutor announced his decision reveals that they are driven purely by political motives. This can only serve to rapidly aggravate partisan wrangling between the pan-green and pan-blue camps.
Third, in a democratic nation, the judicial system may be neutral, but prosecutors are not. They are inevitably influenced by their political affiliations, and not even an advanced democracy like the US is an exception to this.
Although the prosecutor charging Wu and the others has always called himself "deep green" -- I am becoming more and more confused about what that really means -- his indictment is clearly unfair and inappropriate in places. Certain phrases even get dangerously close to declaring the president's guilt.
Given the fact that Chen and Wu had to provide the prosecutor with further explanations and the fact that they expressed their willingness to do so to the prosecutor, and also given the fact that it is a complex and sensitive issue involving a head of state and a secret state affairs fund, the prosecutor displayed impatience and did not wait for a complete explanation before making a decision.
Rather he decided to issue an indictment only two days after he had declared that the first couple were suspected of having violated the law without giving them a chance to provide a more detailed explanation.
This leaves a feeling of carelessness and maybe even a suspicion that he is eager to pin a crime on the two. These factors are certain to affect public feeling on the justness of the indictment.
When KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is being investigated, pro-blue media are quick to shout "unfair judiciary," but this time around they welcome the decision and not only do they not call the judiciary unfair, but have even published commentaries saying, "God Bless Eric Chen!" It is clear that the case is an extension of the blue-green stand off.
Fourth, regardless of whether the president, his wife and the other accused are given guilty verdicts, it stands out as an undeniable fact that the "state affairs fund" is a breeding ground for corruption. That a nation's president has to collect receipts to justify state expenses is not only preposterous and almost unbelievable but also harming to the dignity of the presidential position. Even more condemnable, a system that allows the opportunity to present unrelated receipts for reimbursement from a state fund is an invitation to break the law.
How could this situation arise? It is the bitter fruit of accepting the participation of the supporting cast from the past dictatorship and perpetuating old practices. The DPP came to power thanks to the support of voters, but when they entered the system remaining from the old KMT government with its bureaucrats at all different levels, it would be inevitable if operations weren't fraught with a lot of friction and conflict.
Even at the end of their rule, the KMT still maintained its Fengtian (
Fifth, the "secret diplomacy" item in the "state affairs fund" accounts once again reminds us of Taiwan's diplomatic difficulties. Every country has to engage in diplomacy, but no other country has to do it in the way Taiwan does -- having to rely on money to "buy" diplomatic recognition and open up diplomatic channels.
Not offering enough money means either being ignored or that the counterpart turns to Beijing. These funds must not be talked about, but if they are, no one admits to their existence. Taiwan has to sneak around the international community in its attempts to take even the smallest action and cannot be open and frank about its actions.
In the final analysis, only by establishing a new constitution for Taiwan and abolishing irregular habits can Taiwan move toward a complete democratic system and use normal channels to guarantee its government officials remain clean. Only if Taiwan becomes a normal country can it abandon its "secret diplomacy."
The realization of these goals requires the public's continuous and unrelenting effort.
Cao Changqing is a Chinese writer based in the US.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with