After delivering a closing speech at the end of a 24-hour sit-in protest that followed the May 17 anti-government rally, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) sought to assure some demonstrators who were reluctant to disperse, saying: “The DPP’s position on former president Chen Shui-bian’s [陳水扁] case is very clear — he must have a fair trial. The DPP will firmly uphold Chen’s judicial rights. The party will not make you feel isolated.”
Members of the DPP expect the party, with Tsai at the helm, to take timely action to support Chen. In our view, although the humiliation Chen has endured before and during his trial is particular to his case, the case could become a focus for judicial reform. It could, like the Kaohsiung Incident, be a milestone in the fight to remove political interference from the judicial process.
The party leadership should consider forming a team to demand a fair trial for Chen and holding an international symposium on judicial rights.
This would help overcome a split within the DPP between those who support Chen and those who oppose him, uniting the two to save Chen from injustice based on the understanding that judicial rights apply to everyone.
A few days ago, former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun committed suicide. Regrettably, some members of the DPP took advantage of his death to express their anti-Chen views.
Former DPP legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) appeared on two TV stations — TVBS and CTiTV — calling Chen “shameless” and mocking him for not killing himself and admitting his guilt like Roh, who had been implicated in a graft scandal.
These callous comments came as a shock, especially coming from someone whose opinions are as influential as Lin’s.
From a judicial point of view, Lin’s comments amounted to pronouncing Chen guilty before any conviction. On another level, it shows that some people seek to blame Chen alone for all the DPP’s difficulties. The first point shows that these people pay only lip service to human rights and the rule of law. The second shows that they are not willing to bear their share of political responsibility.
To rephrase an old saying, with DPP comrades like these, who needs enemies?
Tsai, as party chair, should not excuse Lin by saying he is free to say what he wants or that his comments do not represent the DPP’s standpoint.
She should publicly declare her commitment to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which is an essential concept for all countries where the rule of law prevails.
She should request that all members of the party refrain from personal attacks against Chen while his trial continues. This should be the bottom line for the DPP in dealing with Chen’s case, and these are points on which party members should have been educated long ago.
If influential DPP members cast aside the presumption of innocence even for a member of their own camp, who will believe that the party’s protests against unfair judicial procedures are anything but pretense?
If the party cannot even uphold the basic civil rights of a former DPP chairman and president, who will believe that the DPP is committed to human rights?
As things stand, the public is having difficulty telling right from wrong and true from false. The DPP is divided, with members and factions each going their own way. If, at this critical moment, Tsai remains aloof and indifferent, it will cast doubt on her pledge to safeguard Chen’s rights and her promise not to isolate his supporters.
Chen Shih-meng is chairman of Beanstalk Workshop.
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