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.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS