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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
RSS