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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS