The Taipei District Court has ruled that the former head of the Council for Economic Planning and Development, Christina Liu (劉憶如), is to pay NT$2 million (US$60,872) in compensation to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) over allegations made four years ago that Tsai was involved in the Yu Chang (宇昌) case.
The ruling brings to mind memories of the 2012 presidential election campaign and how the Yu Chang case was aggressively pursued by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to damage Tsai, his DPP challenger, and how it played a crucial role in the outcome of the election. Tsai was seriously damaged by the allegations, and even though the ruling goes some way to restoring her reputation, as well as displaying the effectiveness and fairness of the judiciary, the affair still leaves a bad taste.
It is difficult not to question the delivery of justice when it comes so late. Had justice been served at the time, the outcome of the election might have been different and the nation might have gone in a different direction.
After the 2012 election, the Special Investigation Division said it found no evidence of wrongdoing on Tsai’s part, but by that time it was too late.
Tsai took legal action against Liu and Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and his wife for attempting to prevent a person from being elected to office, in violation of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法). When it was decided that there was not enough evidence to prosecute, Tsai sought compensation in a civil suit.
Many top Taiwanese biochemists were pulled into the political vortex over the case, and people such as world-renowned AIDS researcher David Ho (何大一) and Academia Sinica President Wong Chi-huey (翁啟惠) became disillusioned with the nation’s political environment. This set back the development of Taiwan’s biochemical industry and caused many experts to lose faith in a country where industrial development was being used as a political weapon. They no longer saw Taiwan as a place conducive to their professional development.
The case shows that in smear campaigns, when legislators or government officials are seemingly exposing wrongdoings, it is often impossible to get to the truth of the matter quickly. Amid confusion whipped up in the media, the targets are unable to find their footing again. Reputations and elections are lost. It does not matter whether their name is subsequently cleared, for the damage has been done and the victim is left with little recourse.
The Yu Chang case has been drawn out over four years. The criminal case did not stand, and there are questions as to whether the compensation is sufficient for the damage done to Tsai and to the nation after four years of incompetent governance.
Compare this to the considerable power available to those in government. For the unscrupulous, for those prepared to resort to any ploy, what is there to stop them from using all means — fair or foul — to win an election?
During a campaign they send out their thugs and reward them handsomely with money, position, or status if they do what is required of them. When the sole priority is to win an election at all costs, everything is pushed aside: ethics, morals and character, and any sense of justice or propriety.
Even though the ruling in favor of Tsai comes a little late, it is still positive news ahead of the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections. It also serves as a timely reminder to the electorate to scrutinize the motifs of the powers-that-be when the mud slinging begins.
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,