An open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed by 34 foreign academics and writers criticizing the government’s timing and motives in accusing 17 former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials with having “failed to return” 36,000 documents during the DPP administration provoked a strong reaction from the Ma administration.
Presidential Office spokesperson Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) said on Monday last week that the Republic of China is a country ruled by law and the government had no choice, but to follow that law.
However, a Taiwan-based lawyer wrote in a letter to the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) that Lo was not very convincing because the government itself was not following the law. He said the Ma administration was only accusing the 17 DPP officials, but not blaming those Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials who were members of the transition team in 2008, and therefore directly responsible for receiving documents from DPP officials.
If there are any missing documents, KMT officials are equally responsible and should also be investigated by the Control Yuan.
Another writer, a university professor, offered some insight into why the government had reacted so strongly to the open letter. He said that the response was not targeted at the open letter’s signatories, but rather the voting public who — in the view of these officials — do not have the ability to think independently. This demonstrates that the overreactions were politically calculated and aimed at winning next year’s presidential election.
The professor also said Lo’s accusation that the foreign academics were “interfering“ in Taiwan’s internal affairs was palpably absurd.
He said that the academics and writers were all experts in their respective fields and had been supportive of freedom and democracy in Taiwan for many decades. The comments from such friends of Taiwan should be welcomed not rejected, he said.
A retired civil servant recounted how when the KMT was in power the different ministries were run in a chaotic manner, but when the DPP came to power in 2000, the government became much more efficient and effective. Part of that was strict guidelines on the handling of official documents, every one being registered and coded after it was received. In other words, it should be very easy to find out where the missing documents are by simply checking the records.
The retiree urged the Ma administration to refrain from vague statements relating to 36,000 “missing documents,” otherwise it would be difficult not to consider such accusations spurious and politically motivated.
Letters and opinion pieces from a cross-section of readers in Taiwan show that many in the nation doubt the credibility of officials in the Ma administration on this issue and believe it to be an attempt to discredit members of the former DPP government.
This selective enforcement of the law by taking “legal” action against former DPP officials started in November 2008, when the Ma government initiated judicial proceedings against a number of individuals.
Statements from the Presidential Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the KMT that “the ROC is a country of law and order” and that “any action that violates the law will be dealt with according to the law” sound eerily like statements coming out of Beijing after the arrest of artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未).
Taiwanese have worked very hard to make our country a democracy. The recent move by the Ma administration represents backsliding away from the basic principles of democracy and rule of law. I trust that Taiwanese will see through these tactics and vote for a change in government next year.
Mei-chin Chen is a commentator living in Washington.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS