The most striking aspect of former Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
Instead, Ma seems to be counting on a back-door approach, which is perhaps a more fitting strategy for his style. Instead of trying to discredit the wealth of evidence prosecutors have gathered against him, he is instead arguing that he was unaware that he should not be treating the special allowance fund as personal income.
His lawyers also note that many other government officials acted in a similar manner with regard to their special allowances. They note that the Council of Grand Justices in 1997 issued a constitutional interpretation involving the special allowances of officials at the now-defunct National Assembly. That ruling implied that the allowances enjoyed a special legal status.
Now, the legal arguments that the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman is making to defend himself boil down to: "But, I didn't mean to steal," and "Everyone else is doing it, so why can't I?"
The strategy doesn't seem over-burdened with legal acumen. One begins to wonder what, exactly, Ma was doing when he was attending Harvard Law School.
Pleading ignorance of the law is never justification for breaking it. Even children can pick up that basic legal principle from after-school TV shows.
The defense claim about the 1997 constitutional interpretation sounds convincing at first, until one considers that it still would not enable a public official to shift taxpayer dollars into their personal accounts.
Ma was a senior public official and an experienced bureaucrat. If he is unable to figure out what kind of behavior is acceptable as the mayor of Taipei, then one must ask what right he has to claim that he is qualified for the nation's highest office.
And what of the hundreds of other officials who have been skimming funds from public coffers? One can only say that we look forward to the day when they are dragged before the courts as well. A little spring cleaning never hurt anyone.
But Ma may be able to drag out the trial until next year's presidential election, which, if he were to win, would then render him untouchable as president.
Such a scenario presents a powerful argument for revoking the legal immunity that the president and lawmakers enjoy -- as though we needed more reminders about how this ridiculous holdover from the authoritarian era undermines our democracy.
No one is above the law, and the retention of this ridiculous part of the Constitution is more representative of the feudalistic underpinnings of the KMT than it is of a modern state.
Revoke immunity now. The pan-blues will be happy because they can then try President Chen Shui-bian (
But everyone should be happy, because it will help end the culture of entitlement and corruption that is exemplified by most of our political leaders.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95