With the indictment of first lady Wu Shu-jen (
With all the hoopla, it is necessary to take a deep breath and take stock of some important issues.
First and foremost, irrespective of Chen's guilt or innocence, and irrespective of the first lady's, the paramount consideration is the continuity of government, the constitution and justice. This lies above all else -- above knee-jerk reactions, disappointment, partisanship, greed, lust for power and predation.
But I am not writing for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) faithful, for there is nothing I can say that will stay their hand against the president, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) or against the Republic of Taiwan.
My comments are instead directed at the frightening plethora of silly suggestions made by those who support Taiwan and who propose a short term solution to the "problem."
To begin with, there is no problem with the presidency or with the structure of the presidency.
Suggestions that A-bian take some sort of temporary leave, cede power to someone else, take a vacation (permanent or otherwise) or in some other manner alter his presidential powers are all childish ruminations of people who apparently do not understand the sanctity of the law and the constitution.
These are not things to be trifled with, changed on a whim or revised every few years.
Although the US Constitution has been amended more than 25 times in 200 years, those amendments have not changed the functionality of the government nor the powers of the respective branches, save impose a limit on the number of terms for the presidency. One of the reasons the US has risen to prominence in global affairs is the constancy of its democracy and constitution, the stability of its government, the relentless pursuit of justice and fairness and the independence of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.
With its checks and balances and its independent judiciary summoned by the founding fathers to preserve and protect the constitution -- representing a system of laws which ensures the rights of all Americans -- the US government is, and remains, a stable engine which changes its oil every four years.
Presidents have resigned, been murdered and have died. But the US has continued because of its system of independent laws.
There is not one word in the Constitution that requires A-bian to step down as president.
This is a question of constitutional law above all else. To suggest that the system of government should be modified in whatever way, as has been suggested by pundits and "experts," bespeaks an infantile understanding of constitutional law.
The Constitution is simply not something to ignore or tinker with for light and transient causes -- and although some people within the pan-blue camp would have everyone believe the world will end if A-bian does not step down, the issues Taiwan is facing today are indeed light and transient and in fact are defined as such in the Constitution by their exclusion as reasons for impeachment.
This is not to suggest that the charges against Chen are meaningless or trifling. Notwithstanding, the law remains sacrosanct and we should not be diverted from it.
To suggest, therefore, that Chen must step down because charges have been levied against him and his family members is absurd.
If this were to happen, the process of impeachment would not need to exist, as the mere referral of charges would lead to the intended result.
Given the profound hatred of A-bian and all that he stands for by many within the KMT, prosecution is probably a foregone conclusion.
Only A-bian can judge whether there is a likelihood of conviction. Even so, likelihood alone is certainly not enough to warrant his resignation, for more than his presidency is at stake. The intention, it seems, is to undermine the nature of the office and not just its occupant. Those within the DPP who are contemplating supporting a recall motion should understand that this repeated action by the pan-blue camp is not related to corruption but represents downright partisanship.
By supporting the pan-blue camp's attempt to disassemble the presidency, the DPP is tinkering with the very foundations of the Constitution and the very stability of the Republic of Taiwan.
When the indictment of the first lady was announced, I refrained from making a judgment, choosing instead to wait for the president to respond. Although in his speech he did not offer a great deal of detail -- and moreover there did appear to be some irregularities -- Chen has said that the charges are unwarranted.
In other words, he believes he will prevail. Nor did anything the prosecutor have to say convince me that the charges are necessarily correct.
Whether or not a particular prosecutor believes the president is not a basis for a change of government. For self-evident constitutional reasons, no public prosecutor has the power to undo the electorate's choice of president.
Nevertheless, even some in A-bian's party have called for his resignation. This is not the law, and is a dangerous position to take, for it ignores the very purpose of the Constitutional mandate of the presidency in the first place.
The president is the elected leader of the nation, and the founding fathers saw fit to identify the very limited set of charges which would be sufficient to support the removal of the president from office -- charges momentous in nature, constituting high crimes, and not simple misconduct.
It appears that the charges presented are insufficient and in fact cannot be levied against a sitting president. The law therefore supports the president's refusal to resign. That should be enough for anyone who believes in the Constitution.
A lot of people seem to have missed the point. Because of their disappointed with the president (even though he disputes the validity of the charges, which furthermore have yet to be proven valid), they think the office of the president should be changed to accommodate the removal of the president from office, temporarily or otherwise. But by saying so, these people completely miss the constitutional boat.
The Constitution is there to preserve the government against transient change and the continuity of office is elevated above mere temporal disappointment. Only if the Constitution is upheld can Taiwan survive as a democracy.
Let us hope that A-bian will support the Constitution and that the naysayers and doubters will reread the Constitution so that they understand that the elected leader cannot be changed like underwear.
The law will run its course, and the truth will hopefully come out. If there are state secrets, then they can only be divulged to a tribunal in secret in camera, as it is done in the US and other democracies.
If there is no adequate explanation, then the president must decide whether his presidency is politically untenable and make a decision in the best interests of the nation and his family.
Chen still has much work to do, and the people of Taiwan still have the chance, through the electoral system, to punish the KMT for spending the last six years whining like spoiled brats and freezing the nation's government on a number of important issues.
It is less certain that Annette Lu (
Lee Long-hwa
New York
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS