What happens to president horsey

Politics Taiwan Politics
141

Come on, this is obtuse to a degree that would make tigerman blush. It is a criminal offense to use illegally gained information. That is why we consider insider trading to be a crime. And for a public official, the use of illegal information doesn’t even have to be for personal gain.

For example, in the US it is illegal for a public official to misuse confidential information and this act carries a varying prison sentence. Now I don’t know the exact laws in Taiwan regarding ethics and public corruption but it would be inconceivable there would be nothing about: misusing confidential information; false reporting for the purpose of influencing legislation (in this case to have the service pact pass); violation of ethic codes; knowingly making false accusations; official misconduct with intent to injure another (this one is dead on).

There is also the not inconsiderable fact that slander is a criminal matter in Taiwan. Ma used illegally gained information to slander Wang in public, and in a really nasty way to, by doing so when he was out of the country for days.

No matter how you slice this, Ma acted illegally. Or, Taiwan really has none of these laws and is in fact the “just one step above banana republic” many accuse it of, in which case your defense of the system is equally misplaced.

142

Be sure to name the cell something like " 中興 "[/quote]

You win this thread. :smiley: That made my day.

143

I’m not a scholar of government or law, so I’d really appreciate feedback from anyone and everyone to help plug the gaps in my knowledge. As I understand it, the justice system is split into two parts: the Judicial Yuan (courts), which is one of the five branches of the ROC government along with the Executive Yuan (cabinet) and Legislative Yuan (parliament) and those two other ones not worth mentioning (Examination and Control); the other part is the Ministry of Justice, which is a piece of the Executive Yuan and therefore under the indirect control of the president via the premier.

While the Judicial Yuan runs the courts and is (expected to be) impartial and fair, the MOJ runs prosecutors’ offices, investigative divisions, and prisons and is part of the ruling administration. So getting the Special Investigations Division to target Wang Jin-pyng I don’t think is illegal in any way – despite being petty and an incredibly stupid thing for Ma to have done, since that was really what made his public support plummet into frosty territory – because the prosecutors answer to the justice minister, who answers to the premier, who answers to the president. If Ma had tried to pressure a court to accept or reject a case or tried to alter a verdict, it would be illegal. (Probably. The president doesn’t belong to any branch of gov’t so his ability to reach into the affairs of the different branches is kind of murky.) Again, corrections by anyone with a better understanding are welcome.

That’s a criminal offense no?[/quote]

My understanding is that it’s an offense to provide the information, not to listen to it. Huang Shyh-ming, basically the attorney-general of Taiwan, has not been impeached by the woefully incompetent lack-of-Control Yuan.

144

Come on, this is obtuse to a degree that would make tigerman blush. It is a criminal offense to use illegally gained information. That is why we consider insider trading to be a crime. And for a public official, the use of illegal information doesn’t even have to be for personal gain.

For example, in the US it is illegal for a public official to misuse confidential information and this act carries a varying prison sentence. Now I don’t know the exact laws in Taiwan regarding ethics and public corruption but it would be inconceivable there would be nothing about: misusing confidential information; false reporting for the purpose of influencing legislation (in this case to have the service pact pass); violation of ethic codes; knowingly making false accusations; official misconduct with intent to injure another (this one is dead on).

There is also the not inconsiderable fact that slander is a criminal matter in Taiwan. Ma used illegally gained information to slander Wang in public, and in a really nasty way to, by doing so when he was out of the country for days.

No matter how you slice this, Ma acted illegally. Or, Taiwan really has none of these laws and is in fact the “just one step above banana republic” many accuse it of, in which case your defense of the system is equally misplaced.[/quote]

Note that above I said that Ma obtained the information in a “questionable” manner…NOT an illegal manner. I’m unsure on the legality of the wiretap used to obtain the information on Wang. Several articles say that the prosecutors who initially heard the conversation between Wang and Ker on the wiretap overheard it “accidentally,” but it has also been reported that the wiretaps were in place legally in accordance with a court-ordered warrant on a separate case of possible corruption that involved Ker.
So then the question is, in Taiwan is it legal to use information gathered on a legal wiretap even if the information gathered is not relevant to carrying out the warrant that the wiretap was initially issued for. If it is legal to do that, then Ma clearly did nothing illegal…maybe scummy and stupid, but not illegal. If it IS illegal to make use of information gathered in this method, then we can start talking about whether or not there is a case to be made against Ma.

It is important to note though, that the criticisms against Huang (the main prosecutor) were NOT about the wiretap. His actions were under investigation because he divulged information about the case to Ma before it was filed with the Control Yuan. Ma did wait until the case was filed before he came out in public with it so he likely didn’t act illegally in that respect, either.

145

Saying he obtained it in a “questionable manner” is risible. You are taking the most widely conservative position you can and trying to paint it as reasonable. It isn’t. Ma should be investigated for using information to destroy the reputation and position of rival. How can that not be illegal and unethical? Even if the information was first filed, which is dubious, it was not for the president to release this information.

This is incorrect. The legality of the information is irrelevant. Insider trading does not have to involve illegally obtained information. Usually it is not. Someone learns something in the course of his work and passes it on to another so that person can purchase land, stocks, etc. It’s illegal even if the information was obtained legally.

If it isn’t then Taiwan is a banana republic with no proper functioning legal system. In which case talking about it as you do, with a focus on legality, and illegalities, is fatuous. If it isn’t illegal for the president to use insider information to destroy a political opponent then you need to get off your soapbox.

146

If it isn’t then Taiwan is a banana republic with no proper functioning legal system.[/quote]

I read in Yapple Daily yesterday that a sleazy husband hired two sleazy private investigators to spy on his sleazy wife who was sleeping with a sleazy foreigner (!!!). The private eyes burst into Mr. James’ apartment while the two were going at it and took pictures. The cheating wife and the – what’s the male form of mistress… mister? – filed charges against the investigators for illegal entry and breach of privacy. (They claimed they were just chatting. Naked. On top of one another.)

Amazingly, the court is still apparently admitting the illegally collected evidence of their illicit relationship because the case against them for adultery stands. Truly mind-bogglingly stupid.

appledaily.com.tw/appledaily … A%E5%A4%A9

In short: don’t have any faith in this ridiculous court system.

147

They weren’t criticisms. He was sentenced to 14 months for releasing classified information. It was commuted to a fine but there is no doubt he released that info to Ma illegally. And Ma then used it timing his release for maximum effect. Again, I can’t take you seriously if you think the matter is closed if there is no statute against a public official using classified information to damage an opponent.

[quote]State Prosecutor-General Huang Shyh-ming was sentenced to one year and two months in prison Friday for leaking classified information related to an ongoing investigation to President Ma Ying-jeou.

Huang has said he would resign if found guilty. His four-year term is due to end on April 18.

The Taipei District Court allowed the senior prosecutor to commute his sentence to a fine of NT$420,000 (US$13,721).[/quote]

148

Why would it be illegal to use accurate information to destroy the reputation of a rival? Ker asked Wong to convince a judge not to allow any more appeals against him. Wang told him everything’s okay and then the appeals stopped. If Ma knows this, he’s not allowed to use it as ammo against his political rival? If the prosecutors would have filed this info and then held a press conference to announce it, would it have been wrong for Ma to use this information to attack Wang? I don’t see how it would be…

The only reason these events throw any cloud over Ma is HOW he obtained the information and HOW he released it. How he obtained is problematic because the PROSECUTOR broke the law, NOT MA. The prosecutor divulged case information before it was filed with the Control Yuan. As you pointed out (and I had overlooked), he was convicted on this count. How he released the information is problematic for Ma because it was done in a way that was unusual, obviously politically motivated (having the president himself make statements on it) and frankly scummy. Ma making the information public (especially while Wang was out of the country) and taking immediate action against Wang was a horrible way to do things. It made Ma look petty and vulnerable. It smacked of self-righteousness. Instead of having his desired effect of solidifying his support within his party, it immediately back-fired on Ma as he just came off looking like a back-stabber.

But it doesn’t seem to me that it was an illegal move. Incredibly stupid certainly not illegal.

He should have waited for the prosecutors to make the information public at the right time. Then the public would have been justifiably shocked by the revelation and he could have acted shocked with them. Party sentiment would be against Wang. Instead Ma just ended up looking like a bully.

This is incorrect. The legality of the information is irrelevant. Insider trading does not have to involve illegally obtained information. Usually it is not. Someone learns something in the course of his work and passes it on to another so that person can purchase land, stocks, etc. It’s illegal even if the information was obtained legally. [/quote]

I disagree. Insider trading is inherently illegal. Bashing a political rival is not. Like I said above, the only thing about this case that is weird is the manner in which the info came into Ma’s hands and the manner in which Ma released it. Using knowledge of a political rival’s shading doings to try to affect public opinion about him/her is not illegal…it’s just politics.

If it isn’t then Taiwan is a banana republic with no proper functioning legal system. In which case talking about it as you do, with a focus on legality, and illegalities, is fatuous. If it isn’t illegal for the president to use insider information to destroy a political opponent then you need to get off your soapbox.[/quote]

Is it illegal in other countries to use information gleaned from a wire tap if that information is not pertinent to the reason the tap was established? I don’t even know. If I have a wiretap on conversations pertaining to a warrant in a drug trafficking case up, and a conversation on drug trafficking evolves into a conversation on sex trade, can I use the statements on sex trade to develop a separate case?

149

Are you serious? You seem to be but its bizarre to me that it is not obvious to you that a public official cannot act in this way.

First off, it’s slander not least because if wasn’t accurate information (Wang was cleared this summer). So no matter what you seem to think, Ma has acted illegally.

What you also fail to grasp is that Wang is not just a personal rival to Ma but the legal and functioning speaker of the legislative. In this capacity he is a representative of the ROC and personal rivalry cannot play any roll in whether he gets to remain in office and perform his duties. It doesn’t matter that Ma hates his guts: if Wang sees a piece of law passed then Ma has to sign it. If he didn’t because he hates Wang he would clearly be acting unconstitutionally.

However, Ma did take his personal hatred of Wang into the public sphere by trying to destroy him with the illegal evidence. Which of course was not even evidence as Wang was cleared this summer of influence peddling. Taking a private hatred into the public sphere to influence the direction of your country is a gross violation of office. How can you not get that this ethical violation must also be illegal in any functioning democracy?

Do you really think president Obama could use the Justice Department to investigate a sitting senator and then use information he obtained (legally or not) to try and have that person lose his seat? It is one thing to sling dirt at a rival in an election. It is another to abuse your position to try to force another person out of legal office.

Again, how is this not illegal in a democracy and how can you possibly defend this? Ma abused his position.

No. Are you insane to think a president is allowed to unseat someone simply because he doesn’t like him?

The president has no right to go after another politician.

[quote]The only reason these events throw any cloud over Ma is HOW he obtained the information and HOW he released it. How he obtained is problematic because the PROSECUTOR broke the law, NOT MA. The prosecutor divulged case information before it was filed with the Control Yuan. As you pointed out (and I had overlooked), he was convicted on this count. How he released the information is problematic for Ma because it was done in a way that was unusual, obviously politically motivated (having the president himself make statements on it) and frankly scummy. Ma making the information public (especially while Wang was out of the country) and taking immediate action against Wang was a horrible way to do things. It made Ma look petty and vulnerable. It smacked of self-righteousness. Instead of having his desired effect of solidifying his support within his party, it immediately back-fired on Ma as he just came off looking like a back-stabber.

But it doesn’t seem to me that it was an illegal move. Incredibly stupid certainly not illegal.[/quote]

Certainly an abuse of office and so certainly illegal.

You mean dictator who is above the rule of law. Ma took his personal hatred and used the power of his office to enact revenge. And you think that is okay?

150

MM I think you’re a little off-base on a few of the arguments though I agree largely with your conclusion. The problem with Ma’s going after Wang is I feel less about president vs. legislative speaker and more about using state resources (prosecutors office) to handle party business (whether Wang should or should not remain in the party).

Taiwanguy, Ma has no problem of whether or not he can use the illegally obtained info because he didn’t manage to take Wang to court over influence peddling. Instead, he put him through the party’s disciplinary committee, which is a lot less fair and a lot less impartial than a court of law. Basically Ma probably could have made something up (“Wang Jin-pyng is a vampire!”) and if he got important KMTers to believe and agree with it, he could kick Wang out for that.

So the issue has nothing to do with the courts, which have clearly come down in Wang’s favor. It has to do with how Ma got the intelligence from state resources in his capacity as president, and used it to pursue a rivalry through party means because he knew the court system wouldn’t be of any use. It was especially petty because Ma’s party nominated Wang JP to the post in 2010 which really just goes to show you that Ma is an expert at shooting himself in the foot.

151

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]MM I think you’re a little off-base on a few of the arguments though I agree largely with your conclusion. The problem with Ma’s going after Wang is I feel less about president vs. legislative speaker and more about using state resources (prosecutors office) to handle party business (whether Wang should or should not remain in the party).

Taiwanguy, Ma has no problem of whether or not he can use the illegally obtained info because he didn’t manage to take Wang to court over influence peddling. Instead, he put him through the party’s disciplinary committee, which is a lot less fair and a lot less impartial than a court of law. Basically Ma probably could have made something up (“Wang Jin-pyng is a vampire!”) and if he got important KMTers to believe and agree with it, he could kick Wang out for that.

So the issue has nothing to do with the courts, which have clearly come down in Wang’s favor. It has to do with how Ma got the intelligence from state resources in his capacity as president, and used it to pursue a rivalry through party means because he knew the court system wouldn’t be of any use. It was especially petty because Ma’s party nominated Wang JP to the post in 2010 which really just goes to show you that Ma is an expert at shooting himself in the foot.[/quote]

Not sure where I am off base, but yes, a big part of this is how as you say Ma used his powers as president to obtain information that he could use for party purposes (to expel Wang). Again, this is a clear violation of his office and so illegal.

Also as we both write, Wang did not do anything illegal so Ma could have simply made something up. He could then theoretically do this to anyone: use the bully pulpit of his presidency to destroy anyone by saying lies, or the truth is doesn’t matter. And Taiwanguy, apparently, does not see this as illegal.

152

I’m not so sure Wang didn’t do anything illegal. He implicitly pressured prosecutors to drop a case, and prosecutors dropped the case. This could be an abuse of power case. He may not have been found guilty of a crime, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed one. Anyway that’s sort of moot. The point is that Ma said “we suspect you of a crime so you’re out of our party lol” Wonder how long he’d been waiting for an opportunity like that.

153

It’s possible though Ker was also being hounded for something he had been cleared of twice I believe. The decision was whether to take him to the Supreme Court was it not?

It is ironic of course that Ma most certainly abuses his position as he claims outrage over another merely allegedly abusing his.

154

Ma directing the prosecution of Wang is an abuse of power for his own political gain. And through political gain he gets financial gain. For this he should enjoy the tiled Presidential Suite for LIFE with no possibility of parole. You see judiciary cannot go against my reasonable expectations. This is not a conspiracy theory. I’m not convinced it is until anybody show me evidence.

155

It’s possible though Ker was also being hounded for something he had been cleared of twice I believe. The decision was whether to take him to the Supreme Court was it not?

It is ironic of course that Ma most certainly abuses his position as he claims outrage over another merely allegedly abusing his.[/quote]

Given the way O’pony is known for directing his underlings in the supreme court, changing judges, violating procedures, fabricating testimony, issuing last minute guilty verdict, it can be REASONABLY expected that Ko 柯建民needed to call someone for help. Given that Ko was already one of the representatives of the people, and he was the party whip of the opposition party, it is reasonably expected that he’d call O-san Kinpira 王金平 the house speaker.

Jailing people for life?

156

It is legal. The legislators are elected by the people and speak for the people. They can call anybody on behalf of the constituents. Or else the constituents can make the phone call. Either way a phone call can be made (by the principle of Law of agency or Power of Attorney.) Wang happened to be elected by Ko, among many others. Given that the prosecutors already submitted themselves to the pressure by the executive branch, they should not whine about the people pressuring them to correct it. There is nothing illegal about exerting pressure on these gestapo. Also, let’s be reminded that that"attorney general" of the roc is not elected. He is appointed by the executive, who is also not elected.

157

Not sure I agree with a Parliamentary system. But the position of Premier is like our appendixes. Go full on Presidential system.

158

This is virtually the DEFINITION of conspiracy…Believing something with no evidence behind it until someone proves otherwise.

159

Well, that’s your interpretation. I’m not a legal scholar so I’ll leave that up to the system to determine. Certainly any politician, be it the president or the legislative speaker, calling prosecutors and saying “I’m very concerned with the progress of this case, if you know what I mean” sounds corrupt and illegal to me.

160

It’s a tough question. Much of the debate right now is centered on why the president gets to set out whatever he policies he wants but the person who takes the fall when things go wrong is the premier – authority without accountability (權責不符). I think people are wisening up to the fact that it wasn’t a problem with Chen or a problem with Ma that has made them so unpopular, but rather a problem with the system that made them into the leaders they became. The way it works now is like a CEO running his company into the ground and then firing his CFO “to take responsibility.”

The idea with a parliamentary system is that the lawmakers elect the premier, who has to face their wrath when something goes bad and can be replaced at any time. However, the really truly important question the public should be asking is: do we really trust those idiots in the Legislative Yuan enough to choose a leader for us? Instead of reforming the whole system, I think it’s more important to choose more wisely when electing lawmakers. :2cents: