THE PAN-BLUE and pan-green camps have their own interpretations of the not guilty verdict for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Yet in the case of Kaohsiung's "walking fee" trial, in which city Mayor Chen Chu (
In short, Taiwan's politicians are abusing the courts: If any political figures are involved, the loser claims political persecution while the winner lauds the fairness of the system.
For Ma, a guilty verdict could not have been handed down one way or another because the ideological clash between the two camps had reached the point where no matter who was found guilty, chaos would have ensued.
This is especially true of the KMT. Finding Ma, the KMT's last hope, guilty would be tantamount to sentencing the pan-blue camp to an election loss, which might have caused a riot.
Furthermore, judges avoid making decisions that impinge on the election because finding a presidential candidate guilty helps the other candidate(s): Better allow the outcome of the election to be determined by the public than influence the decision with the verdict of a trial.
The justice system is different from politics. In politics, there is no absolute right or wrong. However, one either wins or loses a court case; there is no gray area. In other words, judges should not make decisions with an eye on political considerations.
Because of political conflict, the justice system cannot remain independent and often sways with trends in power.
For the sake of social order, it might be better to let special allowance suspects, for example, off the hook. However, to preserve the authority of the justice system, any change in the way such matters are dealt with should be effected by another branch of government.
Local and high courts have misinterpreted the nature of the special allowance funds, thinking them to be a part of a salary. They are nothing of the sort. They are public monies that fall under the category of business funds.
Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) claims that if he is elected president, there will be a general amnesty on special allowance cases. This is a good idea. Because Hsieh himself is not implicated in such a case, he can deal with the case impartially.
And unlike using judicial channels, having a president declare a general amnesty does not lead to repercussions for the judiciary and preserves its integrity.
The special allowance cases should be dealt with through a general amnesty rather than specific pardons.
However, a general amnesty also requires the approval of the legislature.
If the pan-blue and pan-green camps can show some restraint and allow the president to declare a general amnesty, they would be part of the solution to this mess.
On the one hand, a general amnesty will ensure social stability; on the other, it will increase the prestige of the office of president.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor of electrical engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University and head of the Association for the Promotion of Taiwan's Security.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath