Self-styled elder statesman of the pan-green camp and former Presidential Office secretary-general Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) was nominated to work for the Control Yuan and issued a statement saying he intends to clean out any “black sheep” within the judiciary.
Chen was referring to those unscrupulous members of the judiciary that he believes drank from the poisoned cup of the decaying party-state system.
These people have tried to block the government’s transitional justice bill, failed to overturn many miscarriages of justice by military tribunals during the Martial Law era and are the chief culprits of attempts to obstruct the government’s policy of returning all the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ill-gotten assets.
Some people have already predicted that the Supreme Administrative Court justices who ruled against the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee will be dismissed.
Article 9 of the Republic of China Constitution states: “The Control Yuan shall be the highest control organ of the State and shall exercise the powers of consent, impeachment, censure and auditing.”
The Control Yuan’s power of consent has been taken over by the legislature, and according to the Control Act (監察法), its primary authority is the impeachment and censure of civil servants who engaged in illegal behavior or negligence.
However, the Control Yuan only has the authority to censure or impeach civil servants. If no explicit transgression has been uncovered, the Control Yuan cannot censure a person based on toxic attitudes adopted during the authoritarian party-state period. If they did, its members would themselves be guilty of illegal and negligent behavior and could be impeached.
It is undeniable that under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) there were many unjust laws that violated universal human rights, such as the Punishment of Rebellion Act (懲治叛亂條例) and the Suppression of the Communist Rebellion Act (戡亂時期檢肅匪諜條例), which defined the expression of political views and criticism of the government as acts of treachery. Even people who had contact with those branded “traitors” were regarded as traitors themselves.
These unjust laws and regulations were long ago criticized by lawyers, pioneering democracy activists and principled members of the judiciary. Following several transitions of political power, these laws have been repealed.
In every generation, it is the duty of the judiciary to independently and effectively uphold the law without fear or favor. Perhaps within today’s judiciary, there remain people who previously applied some of those unjust laws, but this is a consequence of the changing times. Chen’s grandfather Chen Pu-lei (陳布雷) followed Chiang for more than two decades; this was a natural and unavoidable consequence of the time.
Those regulations now belong to the past. It is the duty of today’s judiciary to enforce all of Taiwan’s laws. Could it really be that there are still members of the judiciary intent on sticking to the toxic ways of the party-state and obstructing transitional justice?
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) holds the presidency and enjoys a majority in the legislature. Based on bitter experience, it should be even better able to understand the importance of the civil service in maintaining neutrality and of an independent judiciary.
If the DPP, after having gained control of the three main branches of government, continues to see itself as a victim and governs based on an ideological view of the “vestiges of the party-state,” then in what way is this any different from Chiang’s authoritarian government?
Li Chin-i is a head prosecutor at the Taichung branch of the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office.
Translated by Edward Jones
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing