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
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
“If you do not work in semiconductors, you are nothing in this country.” That is what an 18-year-old told me after my speech at the Kaohsiung International Youth Forum. It was a heartbreaking comment — one that highlights how Taiwan ignores the potential of the creative industry and the soft power that it generates. We all know what an Asian nation can achieve in that field. Japan led the way decades ago. South Korea followed with the enormous success of “hallyu” — also known as the Korean wave, referring to the global rise and spread of South Korean culture. Now Thailand
RSS