On Friday, following the conclusion of investigations by the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) under the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) were indicted on corruption charges, including embezzlement from the state affairs fund, with the prosecution calling for heavy penalties.
This was the first time in the history of Taiwan that a former president has been indicted on charges of corruption or any other offense.
The charges include misuse of the fund, money laundering overseas, corruption in relation to the purchase of land for the Hsinchu Science Park extension at Longtan (龍潭), tender rigging for the construction of the Nangang Exhibition Hall and other matters.
The SIP investigation has taken several months and 14 people stand accused, including the former president and several members of his family.
The case has attracted a great deal of attention at home and abroad, and is causing serious political and social repercussions.
The case is a genuine test for Taiwan, whose democracy and rule of law are relatively new phenomena.
The test will be all the more severe now that the SIP has completed its investigation and taken the case to the next stage by bringing charges against Chen.
It is to be hoped that the judiciary will handle the case fairly and without interference, avoiding the kinds of prejudicial actions that have caused so many people to doubt the fairness of the investigation. Only a fair trial can salvage what little faith the public retains in our judicial system.
Chen was named as a suspect in the investigation as soon as he stepped down from office. He stands accused of corruptly abusing the power entrusted to him by the public.
Whether he is guilty as charged is a matter for the court to decide.
But the fact that Chen has been arrested and indicted is a significant development for our democracy, in that it seemingly demonstrates that a former president is no less accountable before the law than any other citizen.
Not long ago, Taiwan was governed by an authoritarian system in which the president was a supreme ruler whose status and power was akin to that of an emperor.
In those days, the president did not rise to power through a genuinely democratic process. He held dictatorial powers and was the object of a personality cult.
No one would dare to expose or investigate the head of such a regime on suspicion of abuse of power or corruption.
The accusations and charges that have now been brought against a former president are a reminder of how easy it is for a head of state to abuse power for his own profit.
More importantly, however, they highlight the fact that the presidency is not a job for life, and the actions of a president, serving or retired, are not above the law.
Prosecutors claim to have gathered conclusive evidence that the accused in this case are guilty of illegal activites.
But this does not mean that a conclusion can been reached at this time on the guilt or innocence of the former president.
The prosecution and defense have the opportunity to present arguments from which the truth of the matter should be determined in a fair, impartial and independent hearing.
Until that time, Chen’s status remains the same as that of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) when he was charged in February last year with misusing his special allowance during his term as Taipei mayor — that is to say, Chen must be presumed innocent and guaranteed the right to a fair trial.
The conduct of the forthcoming trial will be a key indicator of whether Taiwan is maturing into a genuinely democratic society in which the rule of law prevails.
Above all, there must be no repeat of the unjust and at times blatantly unlawful practices that have characterized the SIP’s investigation of this case, a problem that has provoked a great deal of concern and criticism at home and abroad.
If such incidents occur again, the judiciary will have failed in its role as the final line of defense for a just society, signifying a considerable setback for Taiwan’s democracy and the rule of law — possibly even their collapse.
There has been widespread criticism of deviations from legal and democratic norms — and sometimes outright and malicious breaches of the law — that occurred time and time again in the course of the investigation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) states that criminal investigations are to be conducted in secret, yet the media have reported extensively on the investigation’s progress and revealed many details of the case.
What explanation can there be for this other than that those handling the case leaked confidential information or, as many suspect, that the SIP has been working hand in hand with a politicized media?
The investigation has been so open that a well-known television commentator was able to announce the date that it would finish.
No less serious is the fact that President Ma labeled his predecessor the “Ferdinand Marcos of Taiwan” at the beginning of the investigation, while Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) has been acting like a media hack with public comments on an ongoing case. Both are blatant examples of political interference.
Responding promptly to every cue from its political masters, the SIP set itself the goal of completing the investigation before year’s end.
Most seriously, Chen was detained immediately after being called in for questioning and was handcuffed while being transported between the court and the detention center.
This practice was in stark contrast to the treatment given to President Ma when he was indicted last year. Ma was neither detained nor cuffed, nor was he forbidden to travel abroad as Chen has been.
It is not surprising that many people have complained about double standards in the handling of the two cases, even if the letter of the law was applied.
The fact that there has been a series of corruption probes involving politicians associated with Chen’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and hardly any against members of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) points to political bias and has further undermined confidence in the judiciary.
There has also been much criticism of what many perceive as unlawful acts and infringements of human rights by officials in these cases, including the de facto presumption of guilt before trial and the excessive use of pre-trial detention, possibly as a means of extracting confessions.
Because the investigation of the Chen case has been expedited, many of the amounts of money allegedly involved in corrupt transactions were not specified in the indictment, suggesting that the SIP was more concerned with getting the indictment finished on time than on doing a proper job.
After an investigation in which the SIP departed from its pledge to handle the case impartially, the forthcoming trial will be a chance for the judiciary to recover dwindling public confidence.
Chen’s guilt or innocence must be arrived at based on the evidence and through the independent and impartial cross-examination of witnesses by both the prosecution and the defense.
Only in this way will the public’s desire for justice be satisfied and its confidence in the judiciary restored.
We expect and demand a just outcome, and we will keep a close eye on the trial as it unfolds.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS