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
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with