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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS