THE PAN-BLUE and pan-green camps have their own interpretations of the not guilty verdict for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Yet in the case of Kaohsiung's "walking fee" trial, in which city Mayor Chen Chu (
In short, Taiwan's politicians are abusing the courts: If any political figures are involved, the loser claims political persecution while the winner lauds the fairness of the system.
For Ma, a guilty verdict could not have been handed down one way or another because the ideological clash between the two camps had reached the point where no matter who was found guilty, chaos would have ensued.
This is especially true of the KMT. Finding Ma, the KMT's last hope, guilty would be tantamount to sentencing the pan-blue camp to an election loss, which might have caused a riot.
Furthermore, judges avoid making decisions that impinge on the election because finding a presidential candidate guilty helps the other candidate(s): Better allow the outcome of the election to be determined by the public than influence the decision with the verdict of a trial.
The justice system is different from politics. In politics, there is no absolute right or wrong. However, one either wins or loses a court case; there is no gray area. In other words, judges should not make decisions with an eye on political considerations.
Because of political conflict, the justice system cannot remain independent and often sways with trends in power.
For the sake of social order, it might be better to let special allowance suspects, for example, off the hook. However, to preserve the authority of the justice system, any change in the way such matters are dealt with should be effected by another branch of government.
Local and high courts have misinterpreted the nature of the special allowance funds, thinking them to be a part of a salary. They are nothing of the sort. They are public monies that fall under the category of business funds.
Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) claims that if he is elected president, there will be a general amnesty on special allowance cases. This is a good idea. Because Hsieh himself is not implicated in such a case, he can deal with the case impartially.
And unlike using judicial channels, having a president declare a general amnesty does not lead to repercussions for the judiciary and preserves its integrity.
The special allowance cases should be dealt with through a general amnesty rather than specific pardons.
However, a general amnesty also requires the approval of the legislature.
If the pan-blue and pan-green camps can show some restraint and allow the president to declare a general amnesty, they would be part of the solution to this mess.
On the one hand, a general amnesty will ensure social stability; on the other, it will increase the prestige of the office of president.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor of electrical engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University and head of the Association for the Promotion of Taiwan's Security.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS