|
EDITORIAL: Rule of
law or rule by law?
Facing another round of criticism by academics over the weekend about fears of
abuse of power, the Presidential Office again responded by maintaining that
Taiwan was a country of law and order, and that the authorities were only
following the law.
The matter in question, which involves allegations that 17 senior officials in
former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
administration failed to return as many as 36,000 documents — several of them
classified — seemed untoward from the beginning, coming as it did almost three
years after the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) return to power and as the
campaign for next year’s presidential election began to shift into gear.
Some of the DPP officials targeted include former Mainland Affairs Council
chairman Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), a man with impeccable political credentials, as well
as former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), who is one of the three candidates in
the DPP presidential primary.
While some could dismiss the timing as mere happenstance, the explanation
collapses when it is taken in the context of the Presidential Office’s reaction
to the criticism.
“Taiwan is a country of law and order,” Presidential Office spokesman Lo
Chih-chiang (羅智強) was quoted as saying by the Chinese-language Liberty Times
(the Taipei Times’ sister paper) yesterday.
What Lo fails to tell us is whether he means rule of law or rule by law, a
seemingly minute nuance that, in countries with a history of authoritarian rule,
can make a world of a difference. Indeed, if we think about it, Lo’s explanation
means nothing whatsoever.
A police officer could claim he is enforcing the law when, seeing 10 car
thieves, he chooses to arrest six perpetrators, while allowing the other four to
get away. What the officer doesn’t tell us is that the four who fled are close
friends, in which case the selective enforcement itself becomes a political act.
Another scenario could be that while none of the 10 have any association with
the officer, his decision to only arrest six is based on, say, their appearance
or perceived political affiliation. Again, the officer is technically enforcing
the law, but there is more to his action (or inaction) than meets the eye.
Worryingly, justification for police action against specific groups by claiming
rule of law and order is an instrument the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has
refined for more than 60 years. However anodyne the act, by arresting or
harassing individuals the CCP has repeatedly quoted the law, in the process
creating the illusion that the law-abiding state has no choice but to take
action. In reality, it is the CCP, not the alleged “criminal,” that is the real
enemy of the state, as rule by law is used to crush dissent and eliminate
whoever threatens the party’s hold on power.
Over the years, the CCP’s abuse of such rationalization has turned into farce
and few believe the rhetoric when it claims that individuals like Nobel laureate
Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), lawyer Gao Zhisheng (高智晟) or artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未), to name
just a few, are criminals threatening national security.
As a declaration by the Tiananmen Mothers movement said in 1998: “China’s
current legal system is in reality still a tool used by the ruling clique to
maintain and safeguard its grip on power.”
While President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) KMT has yet to attain the level of
surrealism seen in China’s legal system, the selective disposition of the
judiciary under its watch and the specific targeting of DPP officials points to
a campaign to undermine its opponents.
The latest case is especially alarming because it takes aim at 17 individuals
with substantial experience in government and whose resources will be key in
helping the DPP attempt to regain power.
By decimating its ranks and embroiling dedicated, talented and connected
individuals in court appearances and investigations, the KMT could strike a
fatal blow to the DPP’s chances of prevailing in next year’s presidential
election — all under the guise of upholding the law.
|
