Critics who charge that the impartiality of the judicial system has regressed under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) were presented with more ammunition on Wednesday when prosecutors announced the results of their probe into Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) use of his special allowance fund.
Absolving Wang of any responsibility for handling his financial affairs, prosecutors said they were instead considering pressing forgery charges against three of his aides for using fraudulent receipts to claim reimbursements.
Looking at Wang’s probe, one cannot help but feel the outcome is remarkably similar to the verdict reached in Ma’s 2007 special allowance trial, when Ma was found not guilty while an unfortunate staffer was sent off to serve time in jail.
Since then, not a single one of dozens of prominent Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) members who have been investigated over their actions as government officials has been charged with illegal use of the allowance system. Any seasoned observer of Taiwan would not expect this to change anytime soon.
To understand where the claims of judicial bias are emanating from, contrast the fortunes of Wang with senior Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members such as former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), former minister of foreign affairs Mark Chen (陳唐山) and former premier Yu Shyi-kun (游錫堃), who were all indicted after being held responsible for the alleged misuse of their special funds.
This is bizarre as well as ironic, since it was the KMT who created the special allowance system and milked this antiquated, shadowy remnant of the authoritarian era for decades until the spotlight was abruptly shone on its unaccountable nature in the wake of Ma’s indictment.
Yet we are expected to believe that while KMT politicians were unaware their underlings were apparently plundering the allowance system to enrich themselves, their DPP counterparts ran their sticky fingers over every single dollar and receipt, both legal and illegal, before depositing the ill-gotten gains in their own bank accounts and pockets.
While the DPP may have been tarnished with the brush of corruption following the trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), however flawed it may have been, the judiciary is really pushing the boundaries of belief if it expects people to swallow what would amount to a complete rewrite of Taiwan’s political history.
Ever since the accusations of judicial partiality first surfaced, Ma and his administration have repeatedly tried to defend themselves, reassuring domestic and international critics alike that there was no case to answer. Needless to say, those critics remain unconvinced.
Meanwhile, new State Prosecutor-General Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) has also tried to allay such fears, repeating throughout his confirmation hearings and after assuming office last month that he would show no bias when dealing with cases involving politicians.
Yet, in the first notable politics-related judgment of Huang’s tenure, the very notion that there is a blue-green divide was reinforced.
Until the judiciary can convincingly explain the apparent double standard employed when dealing with the cases of figures on either side of the color divide, those doubts will remain.
Actions, in this case, speak louder than words.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS