Does Tsai Ing-wen Really Believe Lai Ching-teh May Ignore the Tainan City Council?

Does Tsai Ing-wen Really Believe Lai Ching-teh May Ignore the Tainan City Council?

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

A Translation

August 6, 2015

Executive Summary:

For over 200 days, Tainan City Mayor Lai Ching-teh has refused to appear before the Tainan City Council. He is now impeached by the Control Yuan for "contempt of the system". Lai Ching-teh has lashed back, and accused the Control Yuan of "selective punishment". He said the struggle between the Tainan Mayor's Office and the Tainan City Council was a "political matter" rather than a legal matter. He dismissed the Control Yuan's impeachment as baseless. Lai Ching-teh seems to have no intention of appearing before the Tainan City Council. But the intriguing question is: Does the DPP really approve of Lai Ching-teh's actions? Is there no one in the Green camp who can dissuade him from his current course?

Full Text Below:

For over 200 days, Tainan City Mayor Lai Ching-teh has refused to appear before the Tainan City Council. He is now impeached by the Control Yuan for "contempt of the system". Lai Ching-teh has lashed back, and accused the Control Yuan of "selective punishment". He said the struggle between the Tainan Mayor's Office and the Tainan City Council was a "political matter" rather than a legal matter. He dismissed the Control Yuan's impeachment as baseless. Lai Ching-teh seems to have no intention of appearing before the Tainan City Council. But the intriguing question is: Does the DPP really approve of Lai Ching-teh's actions? Is there no one in the Green camp who can dissuade him from his current course?

From the statement issued by the DPP, the party still defended Lai Ching-teh all the way. It shamelessly twisted the meaning of the law to conform to the DPP's own rhetoric. For example, the DPP statement cited Constitutional Interpretation No. 498 of the Council of the Grand Justices, which read, "Local self-government is safeguarded by the Constitution." The DPP believes that the interpretation means organs of the central government may not intervene in the affairs of city governments and city councils. In fact, the interpretation, when addressing the respect of the central government respect for local self-government, was responding to the issue “whether local self-government personnel have the obligation to answer interpellations before legislative committees.” It made clear that public functionaries of local governments "may decide depending on necessity" whether to appear before the national legislature for answering interpellations. It did not mean that local mayors may refuse to be interpellated by local councils. The two things are completely different. The DPP flagrantly twisted the meaning of Constitutional Interpretation of the Council of Grand Justices. It assumed that the public is ignorant enough that it can be led around by the nose. What's more, Article 48 of the Local Government Act states that "Mayors of municipalities are required to deliver reports on administration. Top executives of municipalities are required to present business reports. Councilmembers have the authority to interpellate them. Are all these obligations and authorities to be trashed merely because Lai Ching-teh threw a temper tantrum?

Besides, the DPP cited Chang Tung-rung's lobbying and Liu Cheng-hung's land expropriation for the Dapu Borough construction projects. It argued that Chang Tung-rung faced impeachment twice with no result. It argued that the Liu Cheng-hung investigation by the Control Yuan has gone nowhere. It argued that the Control Yuan's impeachment of Lai Ching-teh was politically motivated. This sort of childish evasion reminds one of students caught cheating who then whine, "Why me and not him?" They cannot prove their innocence. If a ball game involves enough players like this, it cannot continue. Cases differ in nature, so does the amount of time required for their investigation. Of course there will be differences. Lai Ching-teh's actions have clearly undermined democracy. Can the Control Yuan do nothing?

Lai Ching-teh took these drastic measures in order to force the judicial system to accelerate the prosecution of Lee Chuan-chiao’s election bribery case. Lai wants Lee Chuan-chiao convicted as early as possible. He is using political means to manipulate the judiciary. In his own eyes, he is merely using his popularity to ensure justice. But from a local government perspective, he is abusing his office to vent his spleen. Interaction between his office and the City Council has become a gladiatorial arena for himself and Lee Chuan-chiao. From a more elevated perspective, checks and balances between the City Hall and the City Council are a centuries-old tradition of democracy. That city executives must submit to council oversight is designed to prevent those in power from doing anything they wish. Lai Ching-teh has refused to appear before the City Council for over 200 days. That means he has been operating without oversight for over 200 days. Appropriations based on municipal government budget may even be illegally authorized. Even if the Tainan City Council were willing to accept this humiliation, our concern is that Lai is undermining the spirit and institutions of democracy.

Stonewalling for over 200 days highlights Lai Ching-teh's sheer obstinacy. As a rising star of the DPP, his high-handed behavior is utterly lacking in the spirit of democracy. Lai may have gotten away with his behavior in Tainan. But if he aspires to higher office, this is sure to become a political stumbling block. What’s intriguing is, why after more than 200 days, has no one in the DPP been able to persuade him to change his attitude? Suppose next year Tsai Ing-wen becomes President. Suppose Lai Ching-teh still refuses to appear before the Tainan City Council. Will she continue allowing him to do whatever he wants? Suppose personal grudges override the democratic process. Suppose checks and balances between the City Hall and City Council are undermined, council oversight is paralyzed, and municipal oversight is shut down. Suppose other county executives and city mayors follow suit? Will Tsai Ing-wen still view this as righteous behavior?

The reason we are questioning Tsai Ing-wen's attitude can be summed up in two words—the institutions. A nation must operate in accordance with its political institutions, not the whims of any person and this or that political party. Just because certain politicians have been deified by some netizens, that does not mean they can single-handedly destroy the institutions. Otherwise, how will Taiwan remain on track? How can it be governed in accordance with the rule of law? Tsai Ing-wen is an opposition leader with high hopes of winning the Presidency soon. If she turns a blind eye to Lai Ching-teh's arrogant usurpation of authority, or worse, openly abets it, how can people believe that Tsai Ing-wen will remain on the of democracy with fairness and justice?

Lai Ching-teh refuses to appear before the Tainan City Council. In fact, he is already in contempt of the Tainan City Council and all its members, but not Lee Chuan-chiao. In fact, he is trampling on democratic institutions to underscore his personal vendetta against Lee Chuan-chiao. Actually, if Lai Ching-teh wants to teach Lee Chuan-chiao a lesson, he could take an entirely different tack. He could make a high-profile City Council entry for interpellations. He could explain his concept of governance to the people. He could use the question and answer format in the interpellation sessions to demonstrate his political charisma, enabling the budget and public works bills to pass without resistance. Before entering the Council, he could deliver a speech explaining his position. He could use the opportunity to embarrass Lee Chuan-chiao. He could even use the interpellation sessions to launch an attack. The rules of democracy tell us that one must engage one's opponents in order to defeat them. As long as Lai refuses to appear before the Tainan City Council, he will not only undermine the institutions, but also hurt himself.

We must ask: Are the institutions more important? Or is the mayor more important? Perhaps the institutions will never be deified. But the institutions are something the people can trust and follow. Lai Ching-teh views his impeachment by the Control Yuan with contempt. But he must think through: Is turning God Lai into Emperor Lai something he really wants as the ultimate goal?

Attachment : none