Persistent speculation about presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (
Unlike the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) promise to its candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the DPP has indicated it would not make an exception for Hsieh. However, as pan-green supporters consider the possibility of choosing between suspending Hsieh or playing hypocrite, another question arises: Is indictment an appropriate threshold for suspending party members?
In an effort to one-up each other's anti-corruption credentials, the DPP and the KMT have set a low standard for party suspensions. But as indictments -- and rumors of indictments -- have forced candidates to begin putting their money where their mouths are, they have found ways around the rules.
To accommodate Ma, the KMT eliminated its "black gold exclusion clause," which requires that indicted members be suspended. Despite the DPP's announcement on Monday that it would not do as much for Hsieh, the latter has been hedging his bets by cherry-picking the types of indictment for which he would withdraw from the race.
In their defense, Ma and Hsieh have charged that prosecutors have been leading a political witch hunt against them. Yet without any evidence to support that claim, the problem lies not with the prosecutors as much as with illogical party rules.
The standards for indictment, which were created for political effect, don't make legal sense. An indictment is only an accusation from prosecutors. Candidates who are eliminated from a race before they have a chance to defend themselves in court are deprived of the legal process to which they are entitled. Moreover, this fosters the mistaken impression that accusation equals guilt and that the burden of proof should be on the defendant. This misconception was widely exploited during the protests against President Chen Shui-bian (
The repealing of the black gold exclusion clause has demonstrated how flexible the KMT is willing to be should its anti-corruption policies conflict with party interests. Its later efforts to change Taiwanese law to allow candidates convicted of corruption to run for president provided further proof of this.
Meanwhile, Ma's determination to run for president, even if convicted, shows how little respect he has for the anti-corruption efforts he built his name on.
Ma's supporters, however, have a point: The black gold exclusion clause -- which Ma introduced -- would have prevented him from running before he could defend himself in court. Although all the facts point to Ma's guilt, he is still entitled to a trial.
It would make more sense for the parties to suspend members after a first conviction rather than following an indictment. Allowing party members to run while under indictment would be messy. But this is already a reality and it would be no more untidy than the hodgepodge of exceptions and loopholes used to circumvent the indictment threshold.
While changing the rules in such a way may be politically unwise for the DPP, a Hsieh indictment could force its hand.
In the end, suspending members is just a poor substitute for real anti-corruption reforms. These should begin with dismantling the overly generous immunity package granted to elected officials. If there were guarantees that candidates could be held accountable even after being convicted while in office, there would be less of a need to prematurely weed out indicted candidates.
A logical standard that can be enforced is better than an idealistic rule bent and broken so often as to be meaningless.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS