Taiwan's democracy should not be marred by illegal eavesdropping, arbitrary justice, and political interference in the media or electoral institutions. All of us share this vision for the next phase of political reform. -- Ma Ying-jeou's inaugural speechRemember that incident during the election when KMT legislators invaded DPP HQ and a scuffle resulted? (my post)? Well, Taiwan News reports that the prosecutors have decided to indict the DPP legislators for their defense against the invasion...
Prosecutors indicted four Democratic Progressive Party politicians yesterday for their role in trying to stop Kuomintang lawmakers from entering the DPP campaign headquarters shortly before the presidential election.
On March 12, three KMT legislators wanted to visit DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters in Taipei. They said they wanted to investigate whether the DPP was illegally using the building.
The visit, barely more than a week before the presidential election, turned into a confrontation between the lawmakers and large crowds of DPP supporters who tried to keep them out, with police caught between the two camps.
Taipei prosecutor Fred Lin (林錦村) said yesterday the DPP's presidential campaign manager Li Ying-yuan, former lawmaker Eve Hsieh, and Taipei City Council members Chuang Juei-hsiung and Hung Chien-yi were being indicted because they had obstructed public affairs and restricted the KMT lawmakers' freedom of movement.
Lin rejected the DPP campaigners' counterargument that the KMT legislators should be indicted for forcing their way on to private property.
Lin said the lawmakers were fulfilling their duty by acting on a decision by a Legislative Yuan committee.
Scary stuff. This is all one with the repoliticization of all social institutions we are seeing -- the two professors who lost their jobs over their political activity, the indictments of 5 DPP cabinet officials for special funds nonsense -- only DPP officials were indicted -- and the politicization of the military I discussed a couple of weeks ago. The trend here is not good....
[Taiwan]
15 comments:
Yeah, very scary stuff. And my KMT friend's always wonder what I mean when I say, hopefully the DPP will be able to have a candidate run for presidency in 4 years again...
I wonder how long it will take for the Taiwanese as a whole to wake up and realize that they are on the losing end of this. The only winners here are China, not Taiwan, not KMT, and certainly not DPP. Perhaps they'll never realize it, and by then it'll be too late.
Lest we forget the words of former president of the Executive Yuan, Hsu Shui-teh (徐水德) (Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT]), who once said, "The courts belong to us." ("法院是我們家[國民黨]開的.")
Tim Maddog
Why was it tresspass for the KMT legislators to want to go into the building? It's not as if they barged their way in and started kicking up the place.
---
tim, so if they're found innocent then it means the courts do not belong to the KMT?
As for the prosecutor, it's the Taipei city guy. It's hardly as if the chief national prosecutor has got involved.
Raj, the issue isn't innocence or guilt, but the way the indictments are being used against the DPP. Indictments chill whether or nnot anyone is found guilty. This is simple revenge -- the KMT lost a lot of face over the intrusion.
The Courts have always been Blue, as have the prosecutorial offices. Until 20 years ago, you couldn't move up in the bureaucracy unless you were a KMT member -- so top bureaucrats today are usually products of that system. It will be another generation before that problem eases.
The KMT legislators attempted to force their way into the HQ of the other party during a Presidential election. Everyone saw them as wrong -- a prominent Taiwan anthropologist was just saying privately that it cost Ma 2-3% of the vote all by itself. Once refused entry, they should have left. The KMT apologized for their behavior, a clear indication they were in the wrong, and the minister of finance resigned. The original links are in the post I linked to in the text above, follow them for the story.
The indictments are all about revenge, IMHO.
Michael
Considering what's happening right now in Malaysia, I'd say there's still a lot of effort by former dictators in Asia to stifle democracy.
Clearly these indictments are meant to serve a couple of purposes: first, to reduce the status of the DPP leadership by accusing them of crimes and keep expsoing their "corruption", and secondly, to keep the opposition busy defending itself so it won't have time to stir up any trouble.
However, I can't help but think these actions will eventually backfire on the KMT.
I believe it was Ma himself who once said it's a bad idea to stir up the supporters of the independence movements.
Everyone saw them as wrong
Wrong isn't the same as committing a crime. I asked why they committed the act of tresspass.
The indictments are all about revenge, IMHO.
Yes, but does that mean everyone should cry "wolf!" over it? Merely being indicted doesn't change anything. If anything it might help the DPP because they can point the finger at the KMT and say "this is how they deal with criticism".
The problem is if such indictments lead to convictions that are not successfully appealed, though even then that might turn them into martyrs and help their party.
I hope it helps the DPP, but my gut says everyone will simply shrug and move on. It's going to take a lot more hollowing before the public becomes alarmed, I think.
Wrong isn't the same as committing a crime. I asked why they committed the act of tresspass.
Apparently they attempted to force their way into a private rented suite in a public building where they had no right to be, after being refused admittance. Looks like assault and trespassing to me, and to a lot of others. But not to local prosecutors.
here's the taipei times report.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/03/13/2003405293
I think they violated election laws as well.
Michael
BTW, the Taipei times editorial of the next day says the police "removed the lawmakers for trespassing."
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/
2008/03/14/2003405498
"Although police were called in to maintain order and did remove the lawmakers for trespassing on private property, they nevertheless did not apprehend them according to Article 306 of the Criminal Code (刑法), which stipulates that it is illegal to break into private households, vehicles and ocean-going vessels without authorization. Instead, police from Zhongshan Precinct limited themselves to politely escorting the lawmakers out of the building."
Raj, it is tresspassing when you enter private property without permission. That is the definition of the term "tresspassing" as a crime. As for this case, the DPP legislators in question did nothing wrong. No matter what happens to the KMT guys, there should be no indictments.... period.... end of story. This is as if someone enters your home, refuses to leave, and then charges you with a crime.
The whole thing is just wrong. My advice to you would be to limit your support for the KMT to situations where there is at least some ambiguity.
My 2c: This is precisely the type of issue that the DPP should not let go at the time being. This is a classic case of abuse of power, and could, if played right, be damaging to the KMT, at least in a small way, as it can be tied to past abuses.
Unfortunately, I don't think the DPP has what it takes to take advantage of the situation. I hope I am wrong.
My advice to you would be to limit your support for the KMT to situations where there is at least some ambiguity.
thomas, I have never "supported" the KMT in any respect. Given that statement is effectively a slur for most people that frequent this blog I ask that you withdraw your comment.
I asked a question because I was not clear on where it took place. Barging into someone's office is tresspass, but wanting to go in by standing in a public corridor or lobby wouldn't be.
First, let me say whatever the KMT legislatures did is stupid before the election. However, they are not trespassing. Why? First, they never step foot in a private space (are we in agreement here?); it is a public building btw. Second, they were accompanied by the building owner. Third, they were stopped at the elevator (a public space) in a public building.
If someone stop me in a public building and don't let me leave. I will personally sue them later (of course, their employers if applicable) to make sure they file for bankruptcy in the US.
Please prove me wrong, thank you.
No Justice...
It's the case since a long time...
Michael, I share you opinion about the trespassing.
But you have to admit that "they" used at that time, a clever way to avoid any legal consequences. So only "others" became guilty...
Questions from Raj seem coherent and I do believe that Arty got a point.
Conclusion: this case is lost. And if people don't wake up, many others will be lost too.
To be on the right side of the river is not enough.
"Others" should use their brain in a more efficient way if they want to succeed.
But I am still... pessimistic.
Arty, rented property cannot be public property. The property is private. It does not matter who the landlord is.
He who pays for the upkeep has the right to do what he wants with the property, and bar whom he wants from entry. As for "inspections", the landlord cannot enter rented properties in most countries without the permission of the renter, which is why you have every right to be right angry with your landlord if you find out he has a copy of your keys. In fact, the police doesn't even have the right to enter without a warrant. This is why "evidence" that is taken from a crime scene without this warrant is unusable. It was obtained illegally.
If the renters did not want the KMT legislators there, the moment those legislators stepped through the door, and were asked to leave, they were breaking the law.
As for corridors and elevators, they are not necessarily public space, even if a building does turn out to be government owned. For example, military bases are owned by the government, but you are not allowed within the perimeter...corridors, elevators and all. This is an extreme case, but the point is that you can't just waltz into a property just because the government is the ultimate deed holder. The space within can still be restricted.
And Raj, the "slur" was relevant in this case.
As for corridors and elevators, they are not necessarily public space, even if a building does turn out to be government owned. For example, military bases are owned by the government, but you are not allowed within the perimeter...corridors, elevators and all. This is an extreme case, but the point is that you can't just waltz into a property just because the government is the ultimate deed holder. The space within can still be restricted.
Yes, but please tell me in this particular building, Hsieh rented suites on the first and 2nd floor. The legislature is going to the 11th (the floor in question). There are other offices in the building. In the US, this type of building will be consider public or semi-public at least the walkways and the elevators. And in the presence of the owner representative, there shouldn't be any debate about it is trespass or not (it is NOT). Of course, Taiwan law could be different.
Post a Comment