An open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed by 34 foreign academics and writers criticizing the government’s timing and motives in accusing 17 former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials with having “failed to return” 36,000 documents during the DPP administration provoked a strong reaction from the Ma administration.
Presidential Office spokesperson Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) said on Monday last week that the Republic of China is a country ruled by law and the government had no choice, but to follow that law.
However, a Taiwan-based lawyer wrote in a letter to the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) that Lo was not very convincing because the government itself was not following the law. He said the Ma administration was only accusing the 17 DPP officials, but not blaming those Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials who were members of the transition team in 2008, and therefore directly responsible for receiving documents from DPP officials.
If there are any missing documents, KMT officials are equally responsible and should also be investigated by the Control Yuan.
Another writer, a university professor, offered some insight into why the government had reacted so strongly to the open letter. He said that the response was not targeted at the open letter’s signatories, but rather the voting public who — in the view of these officials — do not have the ability to think independently. This demonstrates that the overreactions were politically calculated and aimed at winning next year’s presidential election.
The professor also said Lo’s accusation that the foreign academics were “interfering“ in Taiwan’s internal affairs was palpably absurd.
He said that the academics and writers were all experts in their respective fields and had been supportive of freedom and democracy in Taiwan for many decades. The comments from such friends of Taiwan should be welcomed not rejected, he said.
A retired civil servant recounted how when the KMT was in power the different ministries were run in a chaotic manner, but when the DPP came to power in 2000, the government became much more efficient and effective. Part of that was strict guidelines on the handling of official documents, every one being registered and coded after it was received. In other words, it should be very easy to find out where the missing documents are by simply checking the records.
The retiree urged the Ma administration to refrain from vague statements relating to 36,000 “missing documents,” otherwise it would be difficult not to consider such accusations spurious and politically motivated.
Letters and opinion pieces from a cross-section of readers in Taiwan show that many in the nation doubt the credibility of officials in the Ma administration on this issue and believe it to be an attempt to discredit members of the former DPP government.
This selective enforcement of the law by taking “legal” action against former DPP officials started in November 2008, when the Ma government initiated judicial proceedings against a number of individuals.
Statements from the Presidential Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the KMT that “the ROC is a country of law and order” and that “any action that violates the law will be dealt with according to the law” sound eerily like statements coming out of Beijing after the arrest of artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未).
Taiwanese have worked very hard to make our country a democracy. The recent move by the Ma administration represents backsliding away from the basic principles of democracy and rule of law. I trust that Taiwanese will see through these tactics and vote for a change in government next year.
Mei-chin Chen is a commentator living in Washington.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent