Anyone without a deeper understanding of the political situation in Taiwan would be excused for thinking that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) must have violated a slew of laws to cause the pan-blue camp to call for his blood and launch a formal motion for his recall. Even Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said, mouth dripping with venom, that unless Chen steps down, the people will rise up and topple him, giving him a nasty death.
"Topple" and "die a nasty death" are phrases implying violence and coups d'etat that make us think of China's Cultural Revolution, a time when the air was filled with shouts of "topple" and people were driven to "nasty deaths" on a daily basis.
When Ma gave his reasons for supporting the recall motion, he inadvertently told us the truth. He said that the motion to recall Chen was a "political action" and that "a violation of the law is not necessary" to support such a move. In the midst of the barrage of pan-blue accusations against Chen, this was tantamount to telling the world that Chen had not violated the law and that he was not involved in the corruption scandals; that these accusations, in effect, were political fabrications without any foundation in fact.
That is the only reason why Ma, a former minister of justice with a law degree, said that "a violation of the law is not necessary," since that washes Chen clean of all criminal suspicions.
From another point of view, this statement is a shameless attack on Taiwan's democracy. In Western democracies, there is no way to recall a head of state based on political actions. One of the core values of democracy is the adherence to the rule of law.
The House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee voted for three articles of impeachment against US president Richard Nixon, including obstruction of justice. The full House voted to impeach US president Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.
In the end, Nixon resigned because he lacked the support in the House or Senate to survive an impeachment vote. Clinton escaped being impeached by the Senate because some Republicans crossed party lines to vote against his impeachment out of concern for the overall situation. Had the Republican majority in the Senate voted strictly along party lines -- as is likely to happen in Taiwan -- Clinton would have had to step down and the US would have seen an end to its normal two-party political system.
The Democrats are hoping that President George W. Bush will step down, but they are looking for examples of his breaking the law. They are trying, for example, to prove that his orders to bug overseas telephone calls to the US were illegal. They are not trying to impeach him because of his political actions, such as the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If it were possible to recall the head of state in two-party or multi-party systems for their political actions, political views and policy differences would turn democracy into a farce where parties would take turns recalling each other's head of state -- a preposterous, unimaginable situation.
Such a preposterous and unimaginable situation is currently being played out in Taiwan. The biggest opposition party has held a demonstration to incite the public, and its chairman has even said that "a violation of the law is not necessary" to recall the president, his political actions are enough.
By using his status as chairman of an opposition party to say that Chen has broken no laws, Ma has proven that his standards are lower than anyone had ever expected.
Cao Changqing is a Chinese dissident writer based in the US.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS