|
Unravelling the truth
of Ma’s latest policy gaffe
By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒
The most important duty and power of the president in Taiwan is that of
nominating people to positions of responsibility. When it comes to nominating
members of the Council of Grand Justices, the president nominates an individual
and once the nominee is approved, he or she becomes a grand justice.
Once appointed, grand justices are free to perform their duties independently,
without any interference from the president. In other words, if the president
displays poor judgment in nominating grand justices, it is both a dereliction of
duty and it shows incompetence.
We have seen evidence of such poor judgment over the last few days, with
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) nomination of Supreme Court Judge Shao Yen-ling
(邵燕玲) to one of the four places available on the council. Shao declined the
position and an alternative was found in Professor Tang Te-tsung (湯德宗) of
National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development. More
proof, if any more were needed, of Ma’s incompetence. Incompetence of this
caliber would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
Incompetence is one thing, but Ma has another hat to balance on top of his dunce
cap. Instead of a big “D”, this one bears a capital “N” for “negligence,” for
delegating responsibility and not exercising due care in the nomination process.
The first stage in this process is the gathering of information about all the
individuals being considered, so that they can be vetted, a process that should
be both comprehensive and rigorous, digging into the proposed individuals’
backgrounds and even their finances. Given that, how did the people Ma charged
with vetting the candidates for grand justice manage to overlook the fact that
Shao was the original “dinosaur” judge?
However, that is not all. The question is whether Ma was unaware, as he claims,
that Shao was the judge at the center of the controversy over her ruling in a
child rape case? I submit that this claim is false.
On Sept. 25, members of the White Rose movement descended on the Presidential
Office in Taipei to protest against what they called “dinosaur” judges. At that
time, Ma addressed the crowd, giving them five assurances in an attempt to calm
public anger. One of the movement’s instigators, Modern Women’s Foundation
executive director Yao Shu-wen (姚淑文) found it difficult to believe that all this
slipped Ma’s mind within the space of a mere six months. How could Ma have
forgotten an event which he had himself addressed?
For our last witness we would like to call one of Shao’s colleagues, concerning
whether on Monday last week, when Ma received Shao, the two discussed the child
molestation case in question. Ma has pointed out that they did indeed mention
the controversial ruling over the course of their conversation, but that Shao
had not specifically said that she was the judge responsible. According to
reports, Shao’s colleague contradicts this version of events, saying that both
Ma and Judicial Yuan President Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) were aware of Shao’s ruling on
the case and that it had been controversial. Further, the colleague says Shao
made this clear to Ma during their March 28 meeting.
The whole event has turned into a Rashomon remake, a fascinating construct of
substantially differing, yet equally plausible accounts. The report goes on to
say that Shao is not the kind of person who would contradict the president.
Indeed, she emerges as the victim here, imprudently nominated, rejected and then
framed. No wonder she has been left devastated by the whole sorry affair.
President Ma, you stand accused of incompetence, negligence and distortion of
the facts.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
|
