On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal filed by former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (
In another lawsuit filed by Lien and Soong against President Chen Shui-bian (
These two lawsuits, the one against Chen and Lu and the one against the commission, were the first of their kind. Equally unprecedented was the amount of social resources diverted into these lawsuits, not to mention the level of social unrest and disturbance surrounding them. For example, the enormous cost incurred in conducting a total recount of the ballots cast in the election, a total of NT$60.10 million (US$1.8 million), was paid by the Taiwan High Court -- except for the NT$17.22 million paid by Lien and Soong -- meaning that the taxpayers picked up the tab.
Of course, Taiwan is a democratic country subject to the rule of law, so Lien and Soong had every legal right to file their lawsuits. On the other hand, these two men are not ordinary citizens; they are political leaders in whom the people have entrusted important powers. In this regard, they need to be politically accountable for every action they take -- including filing such unprecedented legal actions against the head of state and the CEC.
Unfortunately, both men have repaid the trust of the voters with utterly irresponsible behavior. The lawsuits were brought because these two leftovers from the days of martial law have a sense of entitlement. They simply could not believe -- or accept -- that it was possible to lose last year's election. In truth, they still haven't gotten over their individual losses in the 2000 presidential election.
Not one shred of credible evidence turned up in support of the government "conspiracies" or "cover-ups" they alleged about last year's election and the the election-eve assassination attempt on Chen and Lu -- now known to have been carried out by a Lien-Soong supporter -- while the alleged large-scale tampering with the ballots by the government turned out to be isolated, minor clerical and administrative errors by individuals.
Without an inkling of semi-credible proof supporting their allegations, how could they have decided to file these lawsuits? How could they destroy the sense of legitimacy in the entire constitutional process in the eyes of their supporters simply because the system failed to give the result they wanted? Their actions were irresponsible. In some countries such actions would have been seen criminal -- seditious libel. And all to prolong political careers which should have been over the day they lost last year's election.
Lien's career is over anyway, now that he has reluctantly stepped down as KMT chairman. As for Soong, his political influence has rapidly declined to the point that it could hardly be damaged any more.
The feud between Chen, Lien and Soong that started with the 2000 presidential election has finally come to an end. However, those hoping that inter-party hostility and obstructionism could be replaced by cooperation remain disappointed. Under the new leadership of KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
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