The pan-blue camp's motion to recall President Chen Shui-bian (
The most disturbing aspect of the corruption scandals surrounding Chen is that they are being maintained through asymmetric information warfare. The continuing and sensational exposition by opposition lawmakers of alleged irregularities committed by the president's family and aides has obscured the truth. While these individuals have taken unscrupulous advantage of the freedom of speech to publicize their version of the truth, the judiciary is restricted by due process and the principle of closed judicial investigations, while the first family refuses to dance to the pan-blue camp's tune.
Chen does not want to dance to the tune of the opposition because he thinks the recall motion smacks of political infighting. He has therefore decided not to submit a rebuttal statement to the legislature, choosing instead to address the public on television last night to explain why the 10 main reasons for recalling him do not make sense. That decision has already incurred criticism from the opposition for what it views as disrespect for the legislature and the Constitution. However, the Constitution does not stipulate that the president must submit a rebuttal to a recall motion initiated by the legislature. Since a legislative majority of two-thirds is required to pass a recall motion, it is unlikely to clear the legislature.
When Chen told the public on TV last night his reasons for opposing the recall, he tried to remedy the asymmetrical flow of information regarding the recall, as well as give himself and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) an opportunity to launch a counterattack.
But Chen's refusal to clarify in detail the widely debated allegations of the first family's involvement in corruption scandals is less than what the public expected from the president. Those allegations are the focus of the pan-blue camp's attacks, as well as media interest and public concern. They involve the first family, and apart from Chen himself, no one else can clear up these allegations.
If Chen remains quiet, the pan-blue camp and media will continue their reckless and uninhibited muckraking, and the asymmetric information and allegations against the first family will continue to flow freely, while the truth will remain lost in the political labyrinth of hard-to-define truths and untruths. Chen's report to the public may have helped consolidate core supporters against the recall motion, but it will not do much to restore public confidence in the president.
The bribery and corruption cases are now under official investigation. But with the legislative vote scheduled for next week, the judiciary's findings will come too late. Since there is not enough time to unearth the truth, both the DPP and the opposition will have to rely on political means such as their legislative clout or launch demonstrations in support of or against Chen. Politicians do not treat the truth with respect, nor is their ability to review their own actions improving. And that is the real threat to Taiwan's democracy.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS