Aside from battling the Soviet Union for Cold War supremacy, the US was always on the lookout for a host of villains that it could blame for the most hideous crimes -- Fidel Castro in Cuba, Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their role was simply to serve as a tool to sway global opinion and stir up domestic support for the US administration. In Taiwan, former premier Hau Pei-tsun ( 郝柏村 ) became a similar target for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) during his time in office. The moment Hau stepped up the podium to field questions, DPP legislators would excitedly gather around to attack and provoke him. Their only worry was that Hau, with his military background, would remain above the fray and keep his composure. If he lost his temper and put his manuscript aside, well then, that day's performance was worth the ticket price. This was especially true during the runup to legislative elections, when the more heated Hau got, the more votes would come rolling in for the DPP. Hau's role has since been filled, notably by former People First Party chairman James Soong ( 宋楚瑜 ), who last fall pledged to retire from politics. As a former provincial governor who traveled extensively around the country to meet the common people, Soong was a formidable adversary for the pan-green camp. Still, it was very easy for the pan-greens to mobilize their supporters and stir up anti-Soong sentiment. Simply talking about "Soong the scam artist" was enough to conjure up images of someone bent on selling out Taiwan and send pro-localization forces into a frenzy, like bulls after a heifer in heat. For many voters, representative democracy is overrated if it only means casting their vote in an election for legislators or the president once every three or four years. For these people, the real sense of fulfillment comes from assailing the opposing camp's leaders, and the momentary sense of pleasure it brings. Nor has the constitutional amendment to halve the number of legislative seats and redraw electoral districts helped change things for the better. As soon as the subject of Soong staging a comeback is mentioned, most DPP representatives would dutifully fall in line, stop their protests and turn their attention to attacking Soong. The striking efficiency with which anti-Soong rhetoric can win votes for the DPP is second to none -- not even to Chinese Ambassador to the UN Sha Zukang ( 沙祖康 ), who uttered the infamous words "who cares about Taiwan" at a WHO conference. This kind of attitude reflects voters' tendency to treat their allies leniently, while applying strict standards to others. Consequently, candidates have no compunction about stooping too low or playing dirty when it comes to attacking their opponent. Of course, public figures are open to criticism of their character and political stance. Once their real or perceived flaws or shenanigans are exposed in the media, it becomes a free for all. The line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. At what point one ceases to be a politician seeking the truth and becomes a liar and character assassin is hard to distinguish. Witness the conflict between the pan-blue camp and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). The pan-blue camp held large demonstrations after the 2004 presidential race to protest the election results. Lee then commented that the movement's leaders shouldn't have left early, and mocked them for running off to play mahjong. Soong responded by filing and subsequently winning a suit against Lee for defamation of character, although Lee didn't mention Soong by name. The judges appeared to have ruled in favor of Soong by strictly adhering to the legal definition of defamation. However, once a subtle linguistic metaphor like this is taken as a literal expression, then anyone using a political metaphor might be caught in a legal minefield. Soong won a similar slander suit against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) after Chen accused Soong during a television interview two years ago of secretly meeting with Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the head of China's Taiwan Affairs Office, while in the US. The two have since declared peace, with Chen even asking Soong to act as an intermediary with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). These sudden shifts in alliances are but proof of ruthless political maneuvering. The question is what impact the active intervention of judicial bodies, both civil and criminal, will have on the development of the constitutional system in the nation's deeply partisan politics. I assume that it is more important for the courts to concern themselves with protecting the rights of the people rather than intervening in executive and legislative conflicts. If the case is not related to national security, nor the exercise of presidential authority, it cannot be sheltered under the protective umbrella of national secrecy. But in terms of the principles of constitutional government in regard to civil suits against the president, there is still room to discuss whether they should be concluded during his term, or whether they should wait until after he steps down to avoid interfering with his executive duties.