As Honest As The Day Is Long

Ma Ying-jeou, the likely Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) nominee for the Taiwanese presidency in 2008, began his embezzlement trial on Monday with a great campaign slogan:

"We all know that, in terms of the Criminal Procedure Law, a defendant is innocent until ruled guilty after three trials.  [One trial, followed by 2 appellate court trials – The Foreigner]  So I am still innocent and there should be no problem for me to run for the presidency."

The legislative whip of a minor Taiwanese nationalist party cynically noted that winning the presidency might be Ma’s best legal strategy, since Taiwanese presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office.  Which is fine for Ma, but members of his party must be out of their minds to nominate a man whose only defense against the charge of embezzlement of public funds is that everybody else did it.

The KMT has one year – ONE YEAR – to find a clean candidate before the election.  Rather than do that though, they’d rather while away the time making excuses for the current front-runner.


UPDATE:  A good background editorial from the Taiwan News.

Inalienable Rights

A new Taiwanese constitution was tabled for consideration recently, and Taiwan’s China Post has trouble with the preamble:

…the professors wrote into their draft constitution Taiwan and
China are two different countries and the people in the former have the final
say in their country’s future. Any change to the political relationship between
the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China must be decided by
negotiations between the two sides and subject to approval of the people of
Taiwan, they added.

Do they have to state in the constitution the universally acknowledged
inalienable right of the people to determine the future of their country?

How can a paper call something a "universally acknowledged right" if it doesn’t recognize that right itself?  The China Post has specifically rejected calls for referendums should a future Taiwanese president sign a sovereignty-related treaty with Communist China.  In one of his columns not long ago, Dr. Joe Hung derided as "naive" those who would call for a referendum in such a case, quoting the current constitution, which says that that power belongs ONLY to Taiwan’s political class, and NOT the people.

What the paper really objects to then, is taking the power of surrender away from a future KMT capitulationist.