The vote-buying scandal in Kaohsiung is snowballing. The more councilors that are taken into custody, the higher the number of councilors offering to become witnesses for the prosecution in exchange for a suspension of charges. Two questions arise from these developments. First, is a suspension of charges for accomplices-turned-prosecution witnesses in line with the principles of social justice? Second, can Kaohsiung's City Council continue to monitor the city government and its policy implementation even though most of the city councilors were involved in the scandal? The strength of local democracy in Kaohsiung City hinges on these questions.
DPP Chairman Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) suggested Tuesday that charges against the councilors involved be suspended only after they give up their seats. This suggestion meets demands for social justice. This newspaper would also like to see prosecutors demand that councilors not be given immediate amnesty. Although they would be redeeming themselves by admitting their mistakes, there is still a price to pay.
The opposition parties have echoed Chen's remarks. However, parties can no longer influence the councilors they have already expelled. Besides, whether charges should be suspended in exchange for a resignation should be evaluated by prosecutors on a case-by-case basis.
The Kaohsiung City Council has already been severely compromised. How can Kaohsiung residents expect a tainted council to represent them? The legal wrangling would likely go on throughout their terms of office, even as councilors would be expected to exercise their duties.
According to an opinion poll, 74 percent of Kaohsiung residents want a new city council election. This is a powerful message from the grassroots, showing that the public demands not only that the speaker and vice speaker step down, but that the entire council be re-elected.
In accordance with the Law on Local Government Systems (地方制度法), a new city council election can only be held after 13 councilors abandon their seats. Even if prosecutors offer to suspend charges against bribe-taking councilors in exchange for their resignation, there might only be five or six elected representatives who go this route. If a sufficient number of city councilors who were not involved in the scandal voluntarily resign in order to trigger new city council election, we believe that the voters would warmly embrace these martyrs for respecting the opinion of their constituents. Re-election bids should be fairly easy for them.
In money-for-favors politics, bribed councilors would cling to their posts like a drowning person to a piece of wood in an attempt to protect their interests. It appears quite impossible that they would give up their positions. But we still hope that their parties' power of moral persuasion, public pressure and the conscience of the misguided councilors will trigger enough resignations to make a new city council election possible. Only by succumbing to one of the above three forms of pressure can the bribe-takers atone for the harm they've done to democracy in Kaohsiung.
Kaohsiung City, once known as the democratic heartland of Taiwan's opposition movement, has been tarnished by this bribery. Conduct a second election for the city council and make Kaohsiung's tainted council a watershed in Taiwan's anti-corruption campaign.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS