As a result of the introduction of Chinese national education in Hong Kong’s educational curriculum and the resulting youth protests, I have recently been thinking about the issue of “Chinese culture.” I wonder to what extent Taiwan is afflicted by the Chinese cultural tradition of placing the rule of man over the rule of law. The reason the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is now eager to promote Confucius is that the Confucian idea of the rule of man is in line with the goals of the government in Beijing.
At the turn of the century, in response to public discontent over increasing corruption in the Chinese government, then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) came up with the slogan “ruling the country by virtue.” Later, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) proposed the “eight honors and eight shames” slogan. Former Chongqing party boss Bo Xilai (薄熙來), a protege of Jiang, took the highest moral ground when he proposed the idea of “praising the Communist Party and fighting organized crime,” and to date, not one Chinese official has openly dared to say anything against this.
The issue of corruption was completely ignored at the recent trial of Bo’s wife, Gu Kailai (谷開來), who was convicted of poisoning English businessman Neil Heywood. The reason is simple: If corruption were treated as a crime, hardly any senior CCP member would be able to keep their job. This is why from the beginning, Hu instructed that Gu’s case be treated as an isolated murder case. However, Gu’s dispute with Heywood involved money and ended in murder, so by not mentioning corruption, the CCP is making it all the more obvious that corruption was involved.
Taiwan’s judiciary is also full of examples of the rule of man. Let us look at the decisions handed out on two similar cases: one involving former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) state affairs fund and one involving then-Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) special allowance fund. Chen was subject to considerable moral preaching during his trial and received severe sentences. Ma, on the other hand, managed to donate the illicit funds he had obtained before the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could file a lawsuit. The judge then cited this as proof of Ma’s lack of criminal intent and let him get away scot-free. In addition, in order to convict Chen, the judge originally in charge of the case, Chou Chan-chun (周占春), was changed. These are all blatant examples of the rule of man as opposed to the rule of law.
To promote unification, Ma does not hesitate to substitute universal, originally Western, values with “Chinese culture.” Besides pushing for the study of Chinese classics in Taiwanese schools, he also embarked on a campaign to promote good moral character among political officials. Thanks to this campaign, two examples of people of high moral character have now appeared among his troupe: former Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) and Council for Economic Planning and Development Minister Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘).
Lin did Ma’s dirty work for him and Yiin is a strong supporter of Ma. The public has seen the extent of Lin’s alleged corruption and disregard for the law, although many of the details surrounding the case remain unclear because the Special Investigation Division is still waiting for the people to come forward and provide evidence since it does not want to investigate the case. The handling of Lin’s case stands in stark contrast to the government’s proactive investigation into Chen’s case, which some said included fabricating evidence.
I am all for defending someone based on idealistic grounds. However, I am strongly opposed to doing so just to remain in someone’s good graces. Given the state of Taiwan’s economy, falling standards of living and the problems Taiwanese businesspeople are facing in China, the question arises as to what Yiin has accomplished.
Taiwan just posted its ninth consecutive economic “blue light” — signaling recession — last month. What good is that for Taiwanese businesspeople returning from China and Taiwan’s disadvantaged groups? Yiin initially went all-out to defend Ma’s signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China. Now that it does not seem the right thing to do, he has changed his tune. Is this a good example of “high moral character”?
If Taiwan does not have the true rule of law, then it cannot have true democracy. Without the last line of defense that justice represents, how can this “democracy” still be considered just?
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under