Ruling by law?
I am responding to the response from Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) which criticizes the open letter of 34 academics and former officials who raised questions about the nature of the investigation of missing documents from the previous Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration (“Open letter to Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT government,” April 11, page 8).
Let me begin with the most important declaration of Lo’s response. His basic defense is that “the Republic of China is a nation based on rule of law.” This explanation for a government’s questionable behavior is a common self-indulgent argument, which stretches to the pinnacles of generalization and rhetoric, thus denying the specific reality and issues. We do not deny that you have laws. The relevant issue is: Are you employing them justly? Our questions about this are not seriously answered when you reply that you have laws.
Lo, by your promulgation of Taiwan’s “rule of law,” are you implying that you are above criticism? Or that there can never be a contradiction between a law and its implementation?
Are all laws equally applied at all times? Does not every government decide upon its priorities? Are you really suggesting that the timetable for your accusations were spontaneous and without any degree of a political context or agenda? Based upon our combined knowledge and experience of your application of your laws, we feel that in this case they do not pass the criteria of objectivity and of just administration. For example, your government has been much more assiduous in indicting and punishing DPP members rather than Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials.
As for your implied suggestion that we are foreigners and our criticisms are therefore “unfair and lack legitimacy,” I would remind you that your government has signed many international conventions. In doing so, you have justly entered into the realm of universal discourse and argumentation.
The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State reflects our concerns: “Some political commentators and academics also publicly questioned the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high-profile and politically sensitive cases.”
I have taught international human rights law for many years. I have also written on the conditions of the legal system in many countries and have testified in US Congress. I have had negative responses to my remarks from officials in North Korea, China and the former Soviet Union. Their denial of my legitimacy fits into the same pattern as your dismissal of my and our group’s observations and communications.
Our group is aware that many international organizations have studied Taiwan’s democracy, human rights, military policy and governmental behavior. Some have judged your government’s actions as sliding down from heights that were commendable. In this light, we wish that your citizens would have the opportunity to “obey better laws.”
Finally, I am not bothered by your questions of my motives and logic. I am bothered that your priority seems to be to question and critique us and not answer some of our critics who have made provocative and wild accusations. In ruling by law, it is necessary for your government to maintain a truthful and rational dialogue with its people and with foreigners alike.
Though some Taiwanese criticism of our letter may be non-factual and spurious, it is not illegal. However, a government’s reputation is also based on its defense of ethics and its commitment to a quality of life that avoids exploitation of rumors and prejudices.
There have been many fantastic charges: that the letter was written first in Chinese — it was published in Chinese by the Liberty Times based on a translation of our original English letter, which was agreed upon by the signatories; that the prime mover was (former American Institute in Taiwan chairman) Nat Bellocchi — the signees were listed in alphabetical order; that we were promoting a certain candidate or party — this is patently untrue and undocumented.
“Rule by law” includes “rule by civility.” It is incumbent upon the Presidential Office to respond to the ad hominem attacks and deceitful declarations with an attitude of promoting civil discourse. We would hope that the government would solicit reasonable and constructive reactions and comments to its handling of the case of the missing documents rather than ignoring the outrageous remarks and trying to cut off observations and legitimate concerns.
RICHARD KAGAN
St Paul, Minnesota
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS