With the indictment of first lady Wu Shu-jen (
With all the hoopla, it is necessary to take a deep breath and take stock of some important issues.
First and foremost, irrespective of Chen's guilt or innocence, and irrespective of the first lady's, the paramount consideration is the continuity of government, the constitution and justice. This lies above all else -- above knee-jerk reactions, disappointment, partisanship, greed, lust for power and predation.
But I am not writing for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) faithful, for there is nothing I can say that will stay their hand against the president, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) or against the Republic of Taiwan.
My comments are instead directed at the frightening plethora of silly suggestions made by those who support Taiwan and who propose a short term solution to the "problem."
To begin with, there is no problem with the presidency or with the structure of the presidency.
Suggestions that A-bian take some sort of temporary leave, cede power to someone else, take a vacation (permanent or otherwise) or in some other manner alter his presidential powers are all childish ruminations of people who apparently do not understand the sanctity of the law and the constitution.
These are not things to be trifled with, changed on a whim or revised every few years.
Although the US Constitution has been amended more than 25 times in 200 years, those amendments have not changed the functionality of the government nor the powers of the respective branches, save impose a limit on the number of terms for the presidency. One of the reasons the US has risen to prominence in global affairs is the constancy of its democracy and constitution, the stability of its government, the relentless pursuit of justice and fairness and the independence of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.
With its checks and balances and its independent judiciary summoned by the founding fathers to preserve and protect the constitution -- representing a system of laws which ensures the rights of all Americans -- the US government is, and remains, a stable engine which changes its oil every four years.
Presidents have resigned, been murdered and have died. But the US has continued because of its system of independent laws.
There is not one word in the Constitution that requires A-bian to step down as president.
This is a question of constitutional law above all else. To suggest that the system of government should be modified in whatever way, as has been suggested by pundits and "experts," bespeaks an infantile understanding of constitutional law.
The Constitution is simply not something to ignore or tinker with for light and transient causes -- and although some people within the pan-blue camp would have everyone believe the world will end if A-bian does not step down, the issues Taiwan is facing today are indeed light and transient and in fact are defined as such in the Constitution by their exclusion as reasons for impeachment.
This is not to suggest that the charges against Chen are meaningless or trifling. Notwithstanding, the law remains sacrosanct and we should not be diverted from it.
To suggest, therefore, that Chen must step down because charges have been levied against him and his family members is absurd.
If this were to happen, the process of impeachment would not need to exist, as the mere referral of charges would lead to the intended result.
Given the profound hatred of A-bian and all that he stands for by many within the KMT, prosecution is probably a foregone conclusion.
Only A-bian can judge whether there is a likelihood of conviction. Even so, likelihood alone is certainly not enough to warrant his resignation, for more than his presidency is at stake. The intention, it seems, is to undermine the nature of the office and not just its occupant. Those within the DPP who are contemplating supporting a recall motion should understand that this repeated action by the pan-blue camp is not related to corruption but represents downright partisanship.
By supporting the pan-blue camp's attempt to disassemble the presidency, the DPP is tinkering with the very foundations of the Constitution and the very stability of the Republic of Taiwan.
When the indictment of the first lady was announced, I refrained from making a judgment, choosing instead to wait for the president to respond. Although in his speech he did not offer a great deal of detail -- and moreover there did appear to be some irregularities -- Chen has said that the charges are unwarranted.
In other words, he believes he will prevail. Nor did anything the prosecutor have to say convince me that the charges are necessarily correct.
Whether or not a particular prosecutor believes the president is not a basis for a change of government. For self-evident constitutional reasons, no public prosecutor has the power to undo the electorate's choice of president.
Nevertheless, even some in A-bian's party have called for his resignation. This is not the law, and is a dangerous position to take, for it ignores the very purpose of the Constitutional mandate of the presidency in the first place.
The president is the elected leader of the nation, and the founding fathers saw fit to identify the very limited set of charges which would be sufficient to support the removal of the president from office -- charges momentous in nature, constituting high crimes, and not simple misconduct.
It appears that the charges presented are insufficient and in fact cannot be levied against a sitting president. The law therefore supports the president's refusal to resign. That should be enough for anyone who believes in the Constitution.
A lot of people seem to have missed the point. Because of their disappointed with the president (even though he disputes the validity of the charges, which furthermore have yet to be proven valid), they think the office of the president should be changed to accommodate the removal of the president from office, temporarily or otherwise. But by saying so, these people completely miss the constitutional boat.
The Constitution is there to preserve the government against transient change and the continuity of office is elevated above mere temporal disappointment. Only if the Constitution is upheld can Taiwan survive as a democracy.
Let us hope that A-bian will support the Constitution and that the naysayers and doubters will reread the Constitution so that they understand that the elected leader cannot be changed like underwear.
The law will run its course, and the truth will hopefully come out. If there are state secrets, then they can only be divulged to a tribunal in secret in camera, as it is done in the US and other democracies.
If there is no adequate explanation, then the president must decide whether his presidency is politically untenable and make a decision in the best interests of the nation and his family.
Chen still has much work to do, and the people of Taiwan still have the chance, through the electoral system, to punish the KMT for spending the last six years whining like spoiled brats and freezing the nation's government on a number of important issues.
It is less certain that Annette Lu (
Lee Long-hwa
New York
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under