It is a rarity when pan-green and pan-blue lawmakers can see eye to eye on an issue — and the Government Information Office’s (GIO) recent failure to discipline a Toronto-based official over his alleged verbal escapades marks just such an occasion.
Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), director of the information division at the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto, was accused by Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers and a group of relentless Internet users of writing articles defaming Taiwan and Taiwanese people under the pen name “Fan Lan-chin” (范蘭欽).
Despite findings by GIO ethics personnel that suggested there was a “substantial gap” between the gathered evidence and Kuo’s side of the story, Kuo received a demotion to a “non-managerial” post before his case was transferred to the Commission of Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries (公務人員懲戒委員會) in the Judicial Yuan.
The GIO claimed it processed the Kuo case in accordance with the law — one of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) favorite refrains. However, if that were really the case, Kuo would have been handed more than just a demotion.
For starters, Article 4 of the Act on Discipline of Civil Servants (公務人員懲戒法) stipulates that when the disciplinary commission deems a case at hand “a grave issue,” the individual involved must be immediately placed on temporary suspension.
A case of this magnitude clearly constitutes a “grave issue” — an overseas civil officer is alleged to have posted hateful articles on a Web site defaming at least one of the nation’s ethnic groups, claiming ethnic Taiwanese people deserve to be wiped out by Chinese Communists and calling ethnic Taiwanese derogatory names. If the commission members disagree, they are advised to revisit the Constitution, where Article 5 says: “All ethnic groups are equal in the Republic of China.”
Fielding questions on the legislative floor on Tuesday, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) said Kuo’s freedom of speech needed to be taken into consideration while the case is reviewed.
It is dumbfounding to hear the nation’s highest administrative official confusing hateful language with freedom of speech.
British diplomat Rowan Laxton was arrested last month for allegedly shouting anti-Semitic remarks and a Canadian man was convicted in Quebec and sentenced to a six-month prison term in 2007 for engaging in hate propaganda with the creation and management of a Web site that featured racist and anti-Semitic articles and music.
In some European countries, hate speech and Holocaust denial are criminal offenses.
“We will endeavor to create an environment that is humane, rational and pluralistic — one that fosters political reconciliation and co-existence. We will promote harmony among sub-ethnic groups and between the old and new immigrants,” Ma solemnly said in his inauguration speech 10 months ago.
So far, however, we have heard neither Ma nor the Presidential Office issue any condemnation on this issue on their own initiative. We have only had a mild word from Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊), who called the articles allegedly written by Kuo “inappropriate.”
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS