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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS