Last Friday, prosecutors indicted first lady Wu Shu-jen (
There is no question that the indictment not only shocked Taiwan, but also took the overseas Chinese community by surprise. What does the indictment mean? And how should we view the indictment? I think that the issue can be looked at from at least five perspectives.
First, the fact that the prosecutor could indict the first lady is a success for Taiwan's judicial system and democracy. The prosecutor clearly stated that the investigation was conducted without any outside pressure. This pressure, of course, could only have come from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The prosecutor said that President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration had not intervened or interfered in the investigation at any stage of the process, which is laudable for a new democracy.
No matter how incomplete Taiwan's judicial system may be, the fact that the prosecutor could fulfill his duty without political pressure and launch a judicial investigation into a case involving the first lady and top presidential aides has highlighted the fact that Taiwan has developed into a society where everyone is equal before the law.
This is something that the people of Taiwan, who have lived under the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) "do-as-they-please" regime, should be pleased at and proud of.
Second, this respect for the independence and fairness of the judicial system has set a good precedent for the principle that everyone is equal before the law. The next step for Taiwan will now be to abide by the principle of presumed innocence -- the most important legal concept.
In other words, merely being accused is not the same as being found guilty. Therefore, so long as Wu and the accused presidential aides have not been deemed guilty by a court of law, they should be regarded as innocent.
Given that Taiwan was ruled by a dictatorial despotic government for more than half a century, there is a general lack of a understanding of the presumption of innocence. This is why we saw two presidential recall motions in the legislature and a third one already underway before the judicial system commenced legal proceedings, as well as social unrest and street demonstrations.
An indictment is a judicial issue, whereas a recall motion is a political issue. The decision by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) to propose a third recall motion before the conclusion of the "state affairs fund" case on the very day that the prosecutor announced his decision reveals that they are driven purely by political motives. This can only serve to rapidly aggravate partisan wrangling between the pan-green and pan-blue camps.
Third, in a democratic nation, the judicial system may be neutral, but prosecutors are not. They are inevitably influenced by their political affiliations, and not even an advanced democracy like the US is an exception to this.
Although the prosecutor charging Wu and the others has always called himself "deep green" -- I am becoming more and more confused about what that really means -- his indictment is clearly unfair and inappropriate in places. Certain phrases even get dangerously close to declaring the president's guilt.
Given the fact that Chen and Wu had to provide the prosecutor with further explanations and the fact that they expressed their willingness to do so to the prosecutor, and also given the fact that it is a complex and sensitive issue involving a head of state and a secret state affairs fund, the prosecutor displayed impatience and did not wait for a complete explanation before making a decision.
Rather he decided to issue an indictment only two days after he had declared that the first couple were suspected of having violated the law without giving them a chance to provide a more detailed explanation.
This leaves a feeling of carelessness and maybe even a suspicion that he is eager to pin a crime on the two. These factors are certain to affect public feeling on the justness of the indictment.
When KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is being investigated, pro-blue media are quick to shout "unfair judiciary," but this time around they welcome the decision and not only do they not call the judiciary unfair, but have even published commentaries saying, "God Bless Eric Chen!" It is clear that the case is an extension of the blue-green stand off.
Fourth, regardless of whether the president, his wife and the other accused are given guilty verdicts, it stands out as an undeniable fact that the "state affairs fund" is a breeding ground for corruption. That a nation's president has to collect receipts to justify state expenses is not only preposterous and almost unbelievable but also harming to the dignity of the presidential position. Even more condemnable, a system that allows the opportunity to present unrelated receipts for reimbursement from a state fund is an invitation to break the law.
How could this situation arise? It is the bitter fruit of accepting the participation of the supporting cast from the past dictatorship and perpetuating old practices. The DPP came to power thanks to the support of voters, but when they entered the system remaining from the old KMT government with its bureaucrats at all different levels, it would be inevitable if operations weren't fraught with a lot of friction and conflict.
Even at the end of their rule, the KMT still maintained its Fengtian (
Fifth, the "secret diplomacy" item in the "state affairs fund" accounts once again reminds us of Taiwan's diplomatic difficulties. Every country has to engage in diplomacy, but no other country has to do it in the way Taiwan does -- having to rely on money to "buy" diplomatic recognition and open up diplomatic channels.
Not offering enough money means either being ignored or that the counterpart turns to Beijing. These funds must not be talked about, but if they are, no one admits to their existence. Taiwan has to sneak around the international community in its attempts to take even the smallest action and cannot be open and frank about its actions.
In the final analysis, only by establishing a new constitution for Taiwan and abolishing irregular habits can Taiwan move toward a complete democratic system and use normal channels to guarantee its government officials remain clean. Only if Taiwan becomes a normal country can it abandon its "secret diplomacy."
The realization of these goals requires the public's continuous and unrelenting effort.
Cao Changqing is a Chinese writer based in the US.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Perry Svensson
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
Beijing’s diplomatic tightening with Jakarta is not an isolated episode; it is a piece of a long-term strategy that realigns the prices of choices across the Indo-Pacific. The principle is simple. There is no need to impose an alliance if one can make a given trajectory convenient and the alternative costly. By tying Indonesia’s modernization to capital, technology and logistics corridors, and by obtaining in public the reaffirmation of the “one China” principle, Beijing builds a constraint that can be activated tomorrow on sensitive issues. The most sensitive is Taiwan. If we look at systemic constraints, the question is not whether
RSS