Hsinchu City Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) announced her departure from the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) immediately after she was sentenced to seven years and four months in prison by the Taipei District Court for embezzling public funds during her time as a legislator. It was the first trial of her case.
The question is, why did she quit the TPP? What was her intention?
From the TPP’s perspective, Kao was the party’s only head of local government — a high-ranking party member, an important asset and a rising star.
If the TPP had evidence that Kao was innocent of the charges against her, had been wronged, and that her sentencing could be considered “political persecution,” the ruling would not in any way damage the party.
In fact, it would have had the opposite effect: It would spark public empathy for the TPP’s tragic star. Kao could leverage her “victimhood” in subsequent election campaigns, either by running for re-election in Hsinchu City or seeking higher-ranking roles. Her case would become an asset for the TPP’s election campaigns.
A similar phenomenon happened during the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) party-state period, when dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) figures and their family members, who were politically persecuted in the Kaohsiung Incident, were handily elected because they were seen as being victimized for their political beliefs.
It could be expected that Kao’s case would be of great value to the TPP.
The party should not accept her decision to leave, but should rather employ all their resources and mobilize supporters to back her up. One could argue that TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) would be duty-bound to give her a lifetime achievement award for her contribution to the party.
If we look at the situation from Kao’s perspective we see that:
First, it is unreasonable to say that she must leave the party to be able to appeal.
Second, it is nonsense to say that only an opt-out can prove that her case is “political persecution.”
Third, it is illogical to say that leaving the party is the only way to prove her innocence.
Finally, while it might sound reasonable for her to say that she does not want her party to bear the consequences of the ruling, it is hardly a valid argument. The reason is simple enough. If Kao insists that she is being wronged, then why would her party be compromised?
If Kao was politically persecuted, she and the TPP would benefit from it, as told from the above, then how could the party be hurt?
If Kao was being subject to political victimization, why did she not mobilize the TPP’s resources to seek redress through the justice system? Instead, she left the party, which she seemingly tried to avoid compromising. None of this is fathomable.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Fion Khan
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS