President Chen Shui-bian (
Then there was the major fall-out between him and Vice President Annette Lu (
Then last week, Chen was found guilty of libel by a district court for his remark that former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
The verdict issued against Chen is controversial. Many would agree that extending legal immunity to a national leader for criminal offenses but not for civil offences has some fundamental problems. If a choice must be made, one would think that immunity should be given for the latter, not the former.
Presumably only criminal conduct is serious enough to warrant slapping the nation's leader with lawsuits and investigations during his term. For example, in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has immunity from civil cases seeking damages for all actions remotely related to his official duties.
Certainly, in the case at hand, Chen's remarks would have a good chance of falling within that definition.
In particular, the court's verdict orders Chen to pay damages of N$1 each to Soong and Lien and publish apologies to them in major national newspapers. One cannot help but wonder about the wisdom of ordering the nation's leader to make a spectacle of himself in this way.
All of the nation's politicians should be ashamed of themselves for the irresponsible mudslinging tactics they resort to on a regular basis -- including Chen himself. However, in the case at hand, were Chen's remarks so farfetched that they warrant this kind of public bashing of his credibility and authority? How can anyone forget the anxiety and worry that the entire country felt about the security and safety of the government in the wake of the demonstrations after the presidential election -- the violence, the rumors and the whispers?
Furthermore, if Chen complies with the court order, will he ever be able to speak with credibility as the nation's leader again? Is that good or bad for the country? Even if one assumes that he was guilty, that does not disqualify him from finishing his term. However, how effective will he be in that role if he complies with the court order? Is the punishment too harsh? Perhaps this is the reason some countries grant their leaders immunity from civil damages and liability.
In addition, Chen's remarks pale in comparison to the accusations and allegations made by Lien, Soong, and pan-blue leaders after the last presidential elections, and during the wild goose chase and witch hunt for evidence to prove that the Chen administration was guilty of ballot-tampering and faking an assassination attempt.
Nothing was ever turned up. Lien and Soong certainly owe Chen and the citizens of this country an apology. When is that going to happen?
No one denies that Chen has a lot of work to do in the days to come -- including internal party reforms and exercising more caution over what he says. However, this verdict is the wrong way to address his shortcomings.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS