Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Despite his lead in opinion polls, Soong was beaten in the 2000 presidential election because of the Chung Hsing case. Who would have guessed back then that Soong would still be unable to give a coherent -- and credible -- explanation for his conduct three years later?
Lien and Soong are now trying to convince voters that the case vanished into thin air when prosecutors decided not to indict Soong back in 2001 and the KMT announced last February that it would drop its embezzlement allegations against him. They are trying to protect themselves by hiding behind a prosecutorial ruling that the public no longer trusts.
The pair's political judgment appears far different to the expectations and impressions of the public, most of whom think there has been a cover-up. How could the embezzlement accusations become null and void just because the KMT and PFP shook hands and made peace? The public want to know whether the prosecutors' initial handling of the case was appropriate and whether there was any political interference in their decision.
If Lien and Soong really believed in democracy and the rule of law, they should have produced evidence to disprove the charges against Soong, many of which Lien himself made. Since they have not done so, why should they be surprised when their political rivals -- or anyone else -- use Lien's verbal attacks on Soong from the 2000 election to cast doubt on Soong's integrity? How can they expect their behavior or rhetoric to stem the tide of criticism?
The Chung Hsing case involves the misappropriation of KMT assets. Misappropriation is a crime for which a complaint from the plaintiff is not a pre-requisite for prosecution. It is not something on which the parties involved can reach a private settlement and avoid legal repercussions.
More importantly, Soong is a candidate for the vice presidency. It is natural for people to expect higher standards from those seeking the highest offices in the land. The people want Soong to clarify details of the case so that they may be assured of his good character and so that Lien's past accusations may be explained reasonably. Most people don't care if Soong confronts former president Lee in court -- the PFP chairman appears to be trying to use Lee as a diversion to draw attention away from himself and Lien.
When the integrity of politicians comes under suspicion, they should produce evidence to clear their names and to safeguard their dignity. They should not simply engage in passive resistance. If Lien and Soong are not more truthful about the Chung Hsing case, it could damage them as badly as it did in 2000. Quoting the Bible does not mean that God is on your side -- in court, at the ballot box or anywhere else.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS