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
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS