A reading of the lengthy indictment of first lady Wu Shu-jen (
Many of the so-called "facts" of the case were brought forward by those whose goal is to force President Chen Shui-bian (
Regardless of what the future brings, Chen's bright image as the "son of Taiwan" has already been irreparably tarnished.
On the other end of the spectrum, some maintain the hidden goal of preventing Chen and Wu from being indicted or serving prison sentences.
Regrettably, the reality is that on both sides of the debate, the discourse has been hijacked by the logic of politics, and so consideration of right and wrong has been supplanted by concern for partisan gains.
As I write this article, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is continuing its closed-door meetings and many unexpected variables remain that could influence the current political situation.
The overall picture, however, has become clear: Chen looks likely to struggle to retain the presidency despite a third recall motion and the looming possibility of impeachment, recall hearings, street protests and court hearings, which together will provide a severe test for Taiwan's democracy.
But no matter how the situation develops, the following points deserve more consideration and action.
First, though there is no strict legal definition for the "constitutional crimes" that Chen has been accused of, the term is still a concept very pertinent to the situation. The presidency and Taiwan's four other Yuans are all constitutional institutions.
Constitutional bodies cannot commit crimes in themselves, but the people entrusted with exercising their power are capable of all kinds of offenses.
While those in power remain in their posts, there are systems in place to make sure that the government's separation of power doesn't become unbalanced.
This is why the Constitution places direct controls -- such as restrictions on indictments, immunity and impeachment -- on actions that one branch of the government take take against another.
The result of such controls is to allow those wielding power to have the necessary leeway to leave at an appropriate time.
This leeway has been built into the system not to enable the accused to "save face," but instead to maintain the dignity of the constitutional system.
Thus, if those in control of constitutional organizations abuse their power or behave inappropriately, a method has been established that allows them to find an appropriate exit strategy under the constitutional system.
Second, in the past decade, there have been at least two instances where the law stepped in to resolve major political crises. The first was Constitutional Interpretation 261 -- made by the Council of Grand Justices in 1990 -- which ruled that Taiwanese legislators elected in China had to seek re-election to keep their positions.
The second legal intervention came two years ago during the controversy over the 2004 presidential election when the courts averted a major conflict by certifying the results, thereby giving the pan-blue camp a result it had to accept, at least superficially.
It's still unclear whether or not the indictment of the first lady and possible indictment of the president will lead to a third legal intervention, but there should be some concern about the impact of such judicial intervention on Taiwan's democratic development.
The law is meant to be passive, focused on specific cases and past events, whereas the realm of politics is active, universal and forward looking.
If Taiwan resorts to judicial interventions such as invoking the Constitution, the Election Recall Law (選罷法) and the Criminal Code on a repeated basis, it could cause credibility crises for the nation's judicial system and political system.
Third, the nation has yet to develop a truly strong civil society. A call by pan-green academics on July 15 for Chen to step down and the appearance of the red-clad anti-Chen protesters serve to underscore this weakness.
But more shocking is that many of the organizations and intellectuals that have long criticized the shortcomings of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime have gradually not only softened their arguments when faced with the scandals surrounding Chen and the the DPP, but have even become apologists for the party and for the president.
While to a lesser extent this has cost these organizations and people the ability to criticize Chen and the members of his family for scandal, it has greatly diminished their power to attack the failings of the government and its policies, which is much more important.
Finally, I want to emphasize that the pan-blue camp has also played a large part in hindering the nation from becoming a truly strong democracy.
Many in the pan-green camp have not forgotten the pan-blue camp's sale of its stolen assets, nor have they forgotten the dictatorial rule of KMT leaders.
In addition, the pan-blue camp has abused its majority position in the legislature for a long time, failing to pass legislation that would improve the nation's system of government while calling frequent press conferences to discuss vastly more petty matters.
And pan-blue legislators have openly violated the Constitution by boycotting hearings on appointments to the Control Yuan, suspending the function of the Constitution's most important oversight institution.
While many are fixated on the indictments either handed down or threatened against the first family, they should not forget the real harm caused by the blue-dominated legislature.
Even in the center of a large-scale political dispute, a democratic people must never forget the importance of constant self reflection and continued effort.
Our politicians, political parties and politics will forever be a reflection of the quality of our democracy.
If we believe that corruption will always follow power, then we should continue to consider how power should be bestowed, and take precautions to ensure that it is not abused.
Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Marc Langer
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