When a former president is indicted, it is food for some fundamental reflection. So, when I heard about the indictment of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) on June 30, a number of thoughts came to mind.
The first and foremost was that he is an elderly statesman, 88 years old now, who played a crucial role in Taiwan’s transition to democracy. He is generally referred to as “the father of democracy,” a well-deserved title, as he led the country from the dark days of martial law and one-party rule to a flourishing and vibrant democracy.
Second, he very much wanted this new democracy to join the international community. During his presidency, he was highly creative and inventive in trying to expand Taiwan’s international space. “Vacation diplomacy” and “golf diplomacy” come to mind. In 1994, prodded by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) opposition, he initiated the annual campaign for Taiwan to join the UN and pushed for membership in international organizations such as the WHO.
Third, he started to de-emphasize the Republic of China (ROC) symbolisms in Taiwan’s governance and society, moved toward relations with China on a state-to-state basis and facilitated the subsequent evolution toward a Taiwanese national identity.
What do these thoughts have to do with his indictment? In order to assess this, one needs to look at the role Lee is playing in present-day Taiwan and particularly in the next presidential election, on Jan. 14.
Since 2000, Lee has been at odds with the leadership of his former party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). He became the spiritual leader of the pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union, recently spoke favorably of DPP Chairperson and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), and even made a political call to “Dump Ma to save Taiwan.”
Neither his previous quest for democracy nor his distancing Taiwan from China, nor his present advocacy of the democratic opposition has endeared him to the powers that be in the “old” or “new” KMT. While the present-day ruling party has had to adapt itself to the new reality of democracy in Taiwan, it still clings to its roots, its “ROC” shell of governance and its allegiance to some form of “unification.”
So, what does the charge by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Panel (SIP) that Lee and a top aide illegally siphoned US$7.8 million from a secret diplomatic fund tell us? Perhaps it tells us that the system of checks and balances in the 1990s were not well developed, but Taiwan was still a budding democracy and Lee was — like his predecessors and successors — using secret diplomatic funds to expand Taiwan’s international space (and not for personal gain).
The timing of the charges — about 12 years after the fact — may also tell us more about the nature of the charges: They came right after Lee’s outspoken criticism of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his expression of support for Tsai. There have been denials that the charges were politically motivated and Ma has emphasized that he adheres to “judicial independence.”
However, that Lee is a former president does make it a political issue. Should he then not be prosecuted for alleged wrongdoing? The answer is no; there should be prosecution of cases where there is ample evidence. However, this should be done without any political bias, with timing that alleviates any appearance of impropriety and with the highest standard of objectivity. The judicial system in Taiwan has sadly yet to incorporate those high standards.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. The views expressed in this article are his own.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
RSS