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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS