It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at the antics of would-be Taitung County commissioner Wu Chun-li (
Because of the conviction, Wu knew he would be suspended immediately after taking his oath of office. So he turned his defiance of the local government into a farce of comical proportions, "divorcing" his wife in an effort to circumvent the legal restrictions on appointing a spouse or relative as his deputy.
The legality of this maneuver is in question, and Wu may have broken the law by faking a divorce. And it seems unlikely that he will be successful in exploiting a loophole allowing him to run for the county commissioner's post again in a by-election.
Nevertheless, a group of pan-blue legislators yesterday declared their support for Wu after he came to Taipei and made an appearance at the Legislative Yuan.
The pan-blue parties can be relied on to oppose anything the government proposes, so this is hardly a surprise. But it is still a mistake. These legislators are feeding the perception that, in his standoff with the government, it is Wu that is the victim. But he is not.
The real victims in this case are the people of Taitung and the rule of law.
Wu was convicted before an independent and impartial court. He had every opportunity to defend himself during the trial, and can still appeal.
So why, then, is the pan-blue camp so willing to support this man? Is it asserting that the nation's entire criminal justice system is a sham?
Apparently not. The pan-blue camp's membership has been perfectly willing to go to the courts whenever they feel slighted, as we saw with former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) libel case against the president, or the myriad attempts to challenge the validity of last year's presidential election. And they are enthusiastic about trying to drag pan-green figures before the courts on corruption charges.
Where, in all this hypocritical muckraking, is "Mr. Clean," KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
This situation is emblematic of the current political stalemate. At the point in the development of a democracy when leadership and foresight are most required, none is to be found. Few politicians, in either camp, seem to understand that there are times when partisan wrangling only weakens the political system, with everyone coming out the loser.
The pan-blue camp, and Wu himself, have cited his performance at the polls as justification for giving him a "second chance." The reasoning appears to be that because he is popular, it does not matter if he is corrupt. This is a very dangerous mentality, but unsurprising for the KMT, with its lengthy record of authoritarian rule.
Still, no one has offered a convincing argument why there is a danger in letting the law take its course in the case of the Taitung County commissionership. If a by-election were held and Wu were not allowed to run, it is likely that a pan-blue candidate would again win. There is absolutely no reason, other than spite, to oppose the government on this matter. If Wu has been wronged in the courts, then let him declare this on appeal.
And if he is guilty, how can any lawmaker with a conscience thrust him upon the people of Taitung?
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