In response to requests that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) be released from jail for medical treatment, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) remarked a few days ago that it is a legal issue and not a political one. I am sure the majority of rational people will agree with this. However, we really should ask whether Ma has really viewed the developments in the Chen corruption case from a purely legal perspective.
It would seem that he has not. Ma has interpreted the law to meet his own interests, saying that releasing Chen for medical treatment is tantamount to medical parole and that would be letting him off the hook.
The majority of observers believe that Ma has some very “political” motives and that he is using these ideas to win over deep blue supporters at a time when his public approval rating has fallen to about 20 percent.
If we look back a little further, we see how the pan-blue camp, and this includes Ma, has used Chen as a sure-fire way to win votes.
For example, in this year’s presidential election, the pan-blue camp and Ma spread rumors that the associates of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) were all members of a corrupt group. Clearly, in Ma’s mind, nothing to do with Chen has ever been only about the law.
This casts doubt on the idea that Chen’s release for medical treatment is purely legal in nature. As a former president, Chen is no ordinary inmate. Any news about Chen is potentially politically explosive. As a result, caution is needed when dealing with the issue and it is understandable why Ma is not willing to give in on this matter.
However, it is precisely because Chen is not an ordinary inmate that there should be more debate on whether he should be subject to normal legal regulations when it comes to his incarceration and medical treatment. To put it more bluntly, hardly an eyebrow would be raised at the news of the death of the average inmate behind bars. However, if that inmate was Chen, it would be an entirely different matter.
In 1955, former general Sun Li-jen (孫立人), notorious for fighting the Japanese in China, was accused of crimes such as “sheltering communist bandits” and “mutiny.” According to the laws of the time, he should have received the death penalty. However, Sun’s status meant that the most then-president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) could do was place him under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Chen should be punished by the law for the crimes he committed. However, as a former president, he does have a special status. This special status also means that it is impossible for politics not to affect his prison sentence, as well as the question of whether he should be released for medical treatment. Politicians of all affiliations are very well aware of this.
This being the case, it is best that we avoid disingenuous statements about the law in an attempt to sweep political issues under the carpet. Chen’s treatment is a political issue and it needs to be recognized as such.
Hsu Yu-fang is a professor of Sinophone literature at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent