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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past