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.”
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
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,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS