The elder sister of Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘), the army corporal who died earlier this month after he was allegedly subjected to excessive disciplinary punishment, said officials “were incapable of understanding what we [the Hung family] were trying to tell them.”
Writer Chang Ta-chuen (張大春) also condemned President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in a post on his Facebook page on July 22, reading: “Scum is ruling the nation.”
Hung’s case shows that the incompetent leader has already abandoned the moral high ground.
After the case was made public, Ma remained caught up in consolidating his power, campaigning for another term as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. He completely disregarded the symbolic significance of being head of the state, a symbolism that has existed since antiquity. A president should be a symbol of morality and justice, and should work to earn the public’s admiration.
Without the participation of an impartial third party in the investigation into Hung’s death, it is unlikely that justice will ever be served.
When controversial cases like Hung’s arise that leave room for interpretation, it is time to take the initiative on moral dilemmas. Laws can be amended, meaning that laws are not the supreme arbiter of justice.
However, Ma responded to the matter by saying the case would be tried in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces (陸海空軍刑法) and related military laws, during a visit to the Hung family, in a classic knee-jerk evasion tactic that one expects from such a reprobate.
To stand on the moral high ground, Ma needs to take the moral initiative so the law can serve justice. When dealing with a controversial case, he should hold up the banner of justice clearly and definitively to demonstrate his worth as head of state. Only scum would do the opposite and demand that the law be adhered to unconditionally, even if it means sacrificing morality and justice. This principle applies not only to Hung’s case, but also the forced demolitions of houses in Dapu Borough (大埔), Miaoli County.
From a legal viewpoint, Ma seems equally unaware that the president should approach controversial cases from the highest constitutional level and chose instead to behave like a lawyer.
As Constitutional Interpretation No. 436 states: “It shall not be interpreted that military tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction upon the crimes committed by active-duty soldiers, and the initiation and operation of military trial is within the power of punishment of the nation.”
Under the five-power constitutional framework, Article 77 of the Constitution states: “The Judicial Yuan shall be the highest judicial organ of the state.”
However, the amendments to some military laws made in line with the interpretation fail to fully comply with the intention of the interpretation. As a result, the military judicial system has turned into a “sixth power” external to the system of government. Since they are against the spirit of the Constitution, why can the laws not be amended again?
Both the ruling and opposition camps are now planning to propose amendments to military laws regarding the military judiciary. The Democratic Progressive Party proposes that crimes committed by soldiers be tried by the civil judicial system in peacetime. This is the correct action.
If Ma has no intention of taking the moral initiative in the face of Hung’s death, if he blocks the proposal and refuses to exercise his presidential powers to amend the unjust laws in accordance with the constitutional interpretation, then the public will have no choice but to revolt.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy secretary-general of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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