Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and other KMT officials last week staged a protest outside the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office to voice support for party staffers detained for questioning. Among them was KMT Taipei chapter director Huang Lu Chin-ju (黃呂錦茹), whose office was searched in connection with alleged forged signatures tied to recall petition campaigns targeting Democratic Progressive Party legislators.
Although the protest resembled a political mobilization, Chiang, as Taipei mayor — the highest-ranking official of the nation’s capital, which is governed by the rule of law — took part in an unauthorized gathering in a restricted area, contravening the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).
His participation in the unlawful assembly undermined the principle of administrative neutrality, which the city government is obligated to uphold.
Chiang should be well aware of the Assembly and Parade Act and the regulations governing restricted zones around the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office. After all, the Taipei City Police Department — responsible for collecting evidence and maintaining order during the protest — answers directly to the city government.
When the head of a local government knowingly participates in an illegal assembly, the civil service system would be caught in a dilemma. If the police enforce the law, they risk arresting the mayor; if they refrain, they effectively become a political tool, undermining the authority and dignity of the law.
As a mayor and a member of the KMT, Chiang should exercise greater caution. Instead, he chose to align himself with his party’s political maneuvers — a decision that undermined his authority as mayor and the principle of the rule of law.
Even more concerning is the precedent such behavior might set. If a city mayor faces no consequences for participating in an unlawful assembly, it risks triggering a domino effect across society. If a city mayor is not held accountable for attending an illegal assembly, the general public would almost certainly question the impartiality and consistency of law enforcement.
Such actions risk giving the public the mistaken impression that the law applies only to ordinary citizens, while politicians can act with impunity.
They also threaten to erode the morale of frontline police officers, who might hesitate to take decisive action the next time an illegal assembly occurs.
When politicians disregard the law and abandon administrative neutrality in pursuit of political mobilization and influence, they undermine public trust in government institutions and the stability of the democratic system would be compromised.
People would be given the wrong impression that only ordinary people have to abide by the law, while politicians can act with impunity.
The rule of law is neither a slogan, nor a political tool — it is the foundation of a democratic society. Yet Chiang not only failed to demonstrate the restraint expected of a city mayor, but also trampled on the rule of law he is sworn to uphold. If a mayor shows no respect for the law, how can the government expect ordinary citizens to abide by it? How can frontline police officers be expected to enforce it with integrity?
When the law is sacrificed for partisan political manipulation, the public’s trust in justice and the system begins to erode.
Lee Li-sheng is a Taipei city resident and a political worker.
Translated by Fion Khan
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS