Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑) again demonstrated he is unfit to serve as a lawmaker on Monday with a proposal to amend the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (電腦處理個人資料保護法).
Hsieh had already taken legislative incompetence to farcical levels in December when he visited Washington together with National Police Agency Senior Executive Officer John L. Chu (曲來足) and Ministry of Justice Counselor Chin Jeng-shyang (覃正祥).
On that visit — meant to allay concerns about alleged political meddling in the judiciary and excessive use of force by police during protests against Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) — the trio managed, if anything, to increase suspicions that all is not well in Taiwan.
Hsieh was a national embarrassment as he tried to dismiss concerns of police brutality by contrasting the situation with Los Angeles in an apparent reference to Rodney King. Even more cringeworthy was his repeated claims in front of an incredulous Heritage Foundation audience that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had been charged upon being arrested.
That this man has been charged by the public with formulating laws would be disturbing enough without considering that Hsieh has been chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee.
Now, Hsieh has proposed an amendment that would allow elected representatives such as himself to access personal information about an individual without that person’s knowledge. The purpose of the change, Hsieh says, would be to facilitate investigation of corruption.
“If I’m in the middle of trying to expose corruption and I’m required to inform [the person] first, then I would have no corruption to expose,” Hsieh said in defense of the proposal.
Hsieh does not seem to realize that investigating corruption is not his job. Nor has he explained why he believes the nation’s existing mechanisms for investigating corruption — prosecutors and the Control Yuan — are insufficient. Hsieh would seem to be dissatisfied with the work of prosecutors and Control Yuan members, yet his proposal does not seek to correct any deficiencies with either of these.
Particularly risible is Hsieh’s claim that the new powers entrusted to legislators would not be abused because if the person doing the probing makes “a mistake in accusing [someone] of corruption, [they] would be held legally responsible.”
Hsieh is proposing that the legality or illegality of an act be established after the fact on the basis of whether an investigation succeeds in proving corruption. At what point should the furtive probe be considered illegal — once the person who was investigated is acquitted in a final trial? Or would an indictment by prosecutors be sufficient to determine the legality of a legislator’s secret investigation?
Establishing the legality or illegality of the probe would also be contingent on the elected representative going public with the information he or she has collected. The representative could in fact seek to collect sensitive information about individuals without any intention of making a public accusation concerning corruption. As long as no accusation of corruption is made, nothing would bring these actions to light, let alone lead to a determination of the action’s legality.
Considering the inappropriateness of this amendment, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng’s (王清峰) response to the proposal on Monday was as objectionable as the idea itself. Rather than reject it out of hand, Wang said the ministry needed time to consider it.
Enough time has been wasted already. The government should take a clear stance against Hsieh’s proposal and the legislature should toss it out and move on to proposals with merit.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
RSS