Although governmental authorities insist that their recent actions toward independent Taipei mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — including inspecting his tax records and saying it is inappropriate and illegal for Ko’s wife to take part in campaign events — are completely legal and in “accordance with the law,” it is hard for people to not see such moves as being politically motivated.
Following the failure of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien’s (連勝文) purported campaign to discredit Ko by questioning his use of National Taiwan University Hospital bank accounts last month, the National Taxation Bureau of Taipei launched an inspection of Ko’s tax records.
Although the tax authority defended the move as a “routine inspection” resulting from anonymous tips it received about fees Ko was paid for giving speeches, the probe still drew much criticism from the public, with many panning it as politically motivated.
Yet it seemed the KMT government still had not learned its lesson. Over the weekend, Ko’s wife, Chen Pei-chi (陳佩琪), took part in a campaign event while her husband was away in the US. Afterwards, the Taipei City Government immediately said that Chen was in violation of the Public Servant Administrative Neutrality Act (公務人員行政中立法), which prohibits government employees campaigning publicly for a candidate, saying that since Chen is a doctor at a public hospital, she is technically a government employee.
The latest attack renewed public criticism, with many again condemning it as a political tactic.
To quell the rising criticism, Taipei Mayoral Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) yesterday said that, considering that Chen is Ko’s wife, the city government should not be so strict in passing judgement in this case.
Although all the authorities that launched probes or made accusations against Ko have defended their actions as them following the law, it is difficult not to think that politics are the true motivation.
Certainly, the Pubic Servant Administrative Neutrality Act prohibits government workers from taking part in election events, but it does allow the spouse or immediate family members of a candidate to attend campaign events, though they are banned from “advertising” or “endorsing” a candidate.
So what does constitute “advertising” or “endorsing” a candidate? Did it count as advertising or endorsing when Chen appeared in a crowded market, escorted by Ko’s campaign staff and a city councilor candidate? Is it advertisement or endorsement when Chen says: “Please support my husband”?
The legal aspect of this issue may be complicated and the central or local election authorities usually decide if anyone is in violation of administrative neutrality or the Election and Recall Act for Public Servants (公職人員選舉罷免法). Hence, while the city government accused Chen of acting inappropriately and illegally, it is the one acting inappropriately and illegally, as officials have no right to declare Chen’s actions illegal before the case has been carefully examined and discussed.
In each election, there are dozens of violations of electoral laws, but these are always announced after central or local election commissions conduct case-by-case examinations, which nearly always take place after elections.
Investigations into other matters — such as tax evasion — too, are usually conducted quietly and their results announced only until after the election, unless the evidence is air-tight. It is therefore highly reasonable to suspect that the latest accusation made by the Taipei City Government, the tax evasion investigation and the hospital account claims were all meant to project a negative image of Ko to voters.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic