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.
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