It is a rarity when pan-green and pan-blue lawmakers can see eye to eye on an issue — and the Government Information Office’s (GIO) recent failure to discipline a Toronto-based official over his alleged verbal escapades marks just such an occasion.
Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), director of the information division at the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto, was accused by Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers and a group of relentless Internet users of writing articles defaming Taiwan and Taiwanese people under the pen name “Fan Lan-chin” (范蘭欽).
Despite findings by GIO ethics personnel that suggested there was a “substantial gap” between the gathered evidence and Kuo’s side of the story, Kuo received a demotion to a “non-managerial” post before his case was transferred to the Commission of Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries (公務人員懲戒委員會) in the Judicial Yuan.
The GIO claimed it processed the Kuo case in accordance with the law — one of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) favorite refrains. However, if that were really the case, Kuo would have been handed more than just a demotion.
For starters, Article 4 of the Act on Discipline of Civil Servants (公務人員懲戒法) stipulates that when the disciplinary commission deems a case at hand “a grave issue,” the individual involved must be immediately placed on temporary suspension.
A case of this magnitude clearly constitutes a “grave issue” — an overseas civil officer is alleged to have posted hateful articles on a Web site defaming at least one of the nation’s ethnic groups, claiming ethnic Taiwanese people deserve to be wiped out by Chinese Communists and calling ethnic Taiwanese derogatory names. If the commission members disagree, they are advised to revisit the Constitution, where Article 5 says: “All ethnic groups are equal in the Republic of China.”
Fielding questions on the legislative floor on Tuesday, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) said Kuo’s freedom of speech needed to be taken into consideration while the case is reviewed.
It is dumbfounding to hear the nation’s highest administrative official confusing hateful language with freedom of speech.
British diplomat Rowan Laxton was arrested last month for allegedly shouting anti-Semitic remarks and a Canadian man was convicted in Quebec and sentenced to a six-month prison term in 2007 for engaging in hate propaganda with the creation and management of a Web site that featured racist and anti-Semitic articles and music.
In some European countries, hate speech and Holocaust denial are criminal offenses.
“We will endeavor to create an environment that is humane, rational and pluralistic — one that fosters political reconciliation and co-existence. We will promote harmony among sub-ethnic groups and between the old and new immigrants,” Ma solemnly said in his inauguration speech 10 months ago.
So far, however, we have heard neither Ma nor the Presidential Office issue any condemnation on this issue on their own initiative. We have only had a mild word from Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊), who called the articles allegedly written by Kuo “inappropriate.”
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
RSS