Last week, the Special Investigation Division (SID) cleared former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of any wrongdoing in the Yu Chang Biologics Co case. Prosecutors went to a lot of effort to try and find Tsai guilty, but in the end, she was still found innocent. Anyone with a sensible head on their shoulders should be able to see how the entire Yu Chang case was a ploy used to smear Tsai during the recent presidential election.
Anyone who wants to become president needs to pass strict tests and any doubt someone has about the candidate must be placed under a microscope. The reason for this is simple: A president wields a lot of power and a nation cannot afford to choose the wrong person for the job. However, at the same time, executive power and the investigative rights of the judiciary cannot be abused to frame a person of a crime or to discredit one’s political opponents.
The hardest thing to accept about the Yu Chang case is that then-Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD) minister Christina Liu (劉憶如) was neglecting her duties and instead using official documents that were tampered with in her accusations against Tsai. A few days ago, the leading story in the Chinese-language China Times newspaper was about how Liu told one of the paper’s reporters at the start of June that it was then-premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) who verbally instructed her to carry out the investigation on Tsai. If this report is true, Wu, having been a candidate for vice president at the time, should not have used his executive power to attack an opponent.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his camp can and should question Tsai if they thought she may have done wrong, but they should under no circumstances have abused their authority. Liu has already paid the price for her actions and her integrity will be doubted for the rest of her life. However, it must be asked if someone else was behind the scenes directing the investigation on Tsai.
Why did the SID conduct such a huge investigation during an election? Are people supposed to believe that State Prosecutor-General Huang Shyh-ming (黃世銘) did not know this would influence the election? Prosecutors and judges with even a bit of common sense should know that investigations should not be carried out or verdicts given at sensitive times such as elections, especially presidential elections, if the playing field is to be kept fair.
What is difficult to understand is why the SID and prosecutors and judges are so fond of actions that damage fairness. Huang has authority over the SID, so why did he not do anything to stop it? There is no way that senior prosecutors who have been in the business their entire lives do not know how these things work.
Huang and the SID might believe they can get away with doing whatever they want and that nobody can do anything against them. However, when the public wakes up and demands justice, it will be too late for the individuals involved in such wrongdoings to save themselves.
Allen Houng is a professor at National Yang-Ming University’s Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath