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
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS