Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (
The disputed recording is of Hou's interview with former Taipei City Government treasurer Wu Li-ju (
In listening to the recording, it is apparent that although Hou frequently clarified his questions, Wu often replied with only "Hmm, hmm" or "Yes, yes." It is not clear from this response whether Wu was answering Hou's questions or indicating that she understood or simply heard them. Furthermore, both Wu and Hou cut each other off when talking, with the witness sometimes answering questions without waiting for the prosecutor to finish.
Because of the alleged discrepancies between the written and recorded deposition, Ma's lawyers accuse Hou of being biased against Ma, and having already made up his mind about the case. They have even threatened to sue Hou for forgery, malfeasance and abuse of power.
However, it is clear that Wu gave her testimony willingly and that she signed the written deposition. How could it be claimed, then, that the deposition is a forgery? The accusations by Ma's team are not tenable.
Ma's legal team has released selected parts of the recording to the media in an attempt to attack Hou. This political tactic suggests contempt for the court. As a former justice minister, Ma should know better than to attempt to manipulate public opinion and influence the judiciary in this way. His lawyers, meanwhile, may yet face disciplinary action from the National Bar Association.
Ma's lawyers have also on previous occasions suggested that prosecutors have asked leading questions, and that this is why the former mayor said during his first interview that the mayoral allowance was a public fund. In fact, after the case broke last year, Ma publicly said that the mayoral allowance was a public fund to be used for public affairs. This makes it hard for his lawyers to claim that this opinion was the result of prosecutors asking leading questions.
In the long run, the short-sighted tactics of Ma's legal team are likely to have a negative impact on his case.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS