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
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