Ruling by law?
I am responding to the response from Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) which criticizes the open letter of 34 academics and former officials who raised questions about the nature of the investigation of missing documents from the previous Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration (“Open letter to Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT government,” April 11, page 8).
Let me begin with the most important declaration of Lo’s response. His basic defense is that “the Republic of China is a nation based on rule of law.” This explanation for a government’s questionable behavior is a common self-indulgent argument, which stretches to the pinnacles of generalization and rhetoric, thus denying the specific reality and issues. We do not deny that you have laws. The relevant issue is: Are you employing them justly? Our questions about this are not seriously answered when you reply that you have laws.
Lo, by your promulgation of Taiwan’s “rule of law,” are you implying that you are above criticism? Or that there can never be a contradiction between a law and its implementation?
Are all laws equally applied at all times? Does not every government decide upon its priorities? Are you really suggesting that the timetable for your accusations were spontaneous and without any degree of a political context or agenda? Based upon our combined knowledge and experience of your application of your laws, we feel that in this case they do not pass the criteria of objectivity and of just administration. For example, your government has been much more assiduous in indicting and punishing DPP members rather than Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials.
As for your implied suggestion that we are foreigners and our criticisms are therefore “unfair and lack legitimacy,” I would remind you that your government has signed many international conventions. In doing so, you have justly entered into the realm of universal discourse and argumentation.
The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State reflects our concerns: “Some political commentators and academics also publicly questioned the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high-profile and politically sensitive cases.”
I have taught international human rights law for many years. I have also written on the conditions of the legal system in many countries and have testified in US Congress. I have had negative responses to my remarks from officials in North Korea, China and the former Soviet Union. Their denial of my legitimacy fits into the same pattern as your dismissal of my and our group’s observations and communications.
Our group is aware that many international organizations have studied Taiwan’s democracy, human rights, military policy and governmental behavior. Some have judged your government’s actions as sliding down from heights that were commendable. In this light, we wish that your citizens would have the opportunity to “obey better laws.”
Finally, I am not bothered by your questions of my motives and logic. I am bothered that your priority seems to be to question and critique us and not answer some of our critics who have made provocative and wild accusations. In ruling by law, it is necessary for your government to maintain a truthful and rational dialogue with its people and with foreigners alike.
Though some Taiwanese criticism of our letter may be non-factual and spurious, it is not illegal. However, a government’s reputation is also based on its defense of ethics and its commitment to a quality of life that avoids exploitation of rumors and prejudices.
There have been many fantastic charges: that the letter was written first in Chinese — it was published in Chinese by the Liberty Times based on a translation of our original English letter, which was agreed upon by the signatories; that the prime mover was (former American Institute in Taiwan chairman) Nat Bellocchi — the signees were listed in alphabetical order; that we were promoting a certain candidate or party — this is patently untrue and undocumented.
“Rule by law” includes “rule by civility.” It is incumbent upon the Presidential Office to respond to the ad hominem attacks and deceitful declarations with an attitude of promoting civil discourse. We would hope that the government would solicit reasonable and constructive reactions and comments to its handling of the case of the missing documents rather than ignoring the outrageous remarks and trying to cut off observations and legitimate concerns.
RICHARD KAGAN
St Paul, Minnesota
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS