Only one day after President Chen Shui-bian
In the aftermath of the controversy, an important question remains: Can and should the president sue a newspaper?
With respect to the "can" part of the question, it seems hard to come up with any reasons why the president cannot sue. Presumably, the rights to sue and be sued are inseparable, since right necessarily come with corresponding obligations. So, the president's legal immunity -- or lack of it -- should offer insight on the "can" question, since the Constitution is silent in that regard.
Article 52 of the Constitution states that the president is immune from criminal prosecution, unless he is charged with the crime of treason or rebellion or otherwise recalled or relieved from his presidential functions.
While this establishes presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, what about immunity from civil lawsuits? The Constitution does not say. However, strong arguments can be made for immunity from civil lawsuits over official actions.
But what about civil lawsuits over actions taken by the president entirely in his private capacity? It seems that here the president does not enjoy absolute immunity. If that is true, why can't he also sue others -- including the news media -- in his private capacity and over matters unrelated to his official presidential duties?
Surely, the alleged donation is unrelated to Chen's presidential duties, since the whole thing took place before Chen became president.
Of course, there are those who would ask, "Shouldn't Chen have waited until after he stepped down from office to file the lawsuit?" That way, he would have avoided giving the impression of an all- powerful president crushing a member of the media and trampling on press freedom.
The argument is not without force. This is in fact the "should" question: Should the president file the lawsuit, even if he is entitled to do so?
The answer is that such action should be seen as an extreme measure to be reserved for for extraordinary circumstances.
Have things come to the point of requiring such extreme measures? The answer, sadly, yes.
Anyone who disagrees will probably change his or her mind when reminded about the fiascos concerning sexual harassment allegations against Department of Health acting head Twu Shiing-jer
If a politician, or any other person for that matter, had to wait for years before being able to clear his or her name through lawsuits, the injury to the person would become irreparable. That hardly seems fair.
On the brighter, if even the president chooses to turn to the judiciary to clear his name -- rather than treating the matter as a private vendetta to be settled clandestinely -- a mature democracy is at hand.
Of course, had the general public been more trusting of the judiciary independence of this country, then perhaps the president's action would have been greeted with less skepticism. Therefore, the government must work harder to earn that trust.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS