Last month, the director of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the US press division wrote a letter to a US newspaper defending President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter was not published, but he did subsequently leave comments on the paper’s Web site, in which he said the surveillance and data collection on Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) is not comparable to the US’ Watergate scandal.
He was right, of course, but not in the way he implied. He should have qualified the sentiment by saying that the controversy in Taiwan is far more serious than Watergate was.
There were two aspects to the Watergate scandal: the original burglaries and then-US president Richard Nixon’s involvement. It came about when Nixon’s re-election campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP), resorted to underhand methods to gain intelligence on the Democratic presidential candidate. The CRP hired a team, including former CIA operatives, to sneak into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate building to install bugging equipment and photograph documents. On the second outing, some of the members were caught and arrested.
The operatives admitted the crime, but declined to divulge the reason for the break-ins. Later investigators discovered that the CRP had made payments into the accused’s bank accounts and a former FBI agent who had been involved in the plan to bug the Watergate premises admitted conspiring to provide intelligence to the CRP and agreed to turn state’s witness.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, evidence emerged to link then-White House counsel John Dean to the Watergate intelligence-gathering plan. Reluctant to take the fall for the scandal, Dean implicated Nixon and indicated that the president had discussed hush money for the defendants.
The White House wanted to distance itself from the CRP’s involvement, but the wife of one of the CRP members, then-attorney general John Mitchell, revealed that Mitchell was protecting Nixon. This led to suspicions that Nixon was involved in trying to cover up the Watergate burglaries, which resulted in his impeachment.
The investigation centered on what exactly Nixon knew and at what point he become aware of it. Although crucial parts of White House recorded conversations were “accidentally” destroyed by one of his aides, Nixon was eventually forced to resign his presidency. He was later granted a full pardon by his successor, then-US president Gerald Ford.
With Watergate, the perpetrators were hired thugs. Nixon wanted to bury the case and sweep his subordinates’ illegal actions under the rug. With the scandal currently unfolding in Taiwan, Ma violated the law by receiving a report on an ongoing case from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID), containing intelligence that itself had been illegally obtained through surveillance. He then overstepped his constitutional powers, using intelligence — which the SID had already acknowledged did not prove illegal behavior on the part of the intended object of the surveillance — against the legislative speaker.
When the US Congress sought to impeach Nixon, he neither dared nor was able to claim the moral high ground and attempt to deal with the speaker of the house. Ma, on the other hand, has had the audacity to use intelligence illegally obtained by the state to attempt a political conquest. What he has done makes Nixon’s sins pale in comparison.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US