“The Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] owns the courts,” former Examination Yuan president Hsu Shui-teh (許水德) once said.
Though some may still have their doubts about the validity of this statement, many more were probably convinced of its veracity after the Taipei District Court on Tuesday acquitted former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) of bribery charges.
The court ruled that Lin’s lobbying of China Steel Corp officials did not constitute a breach of duty, and that he had therefore not violated the Anti-Corruption Act (貪汙治罪條例) by accepting NT$63 million (US$2.13 million) from Ti Yung Co owner Chen Chi-hsiang (陳啟祥) to help him secure a contract to buy slag from subsidiaries of state-owned China Steel. Instead, the court found Lin guilty of seeking to profit through intimidation through his capacity as a public official, and guilty of owning assets from dubious sources.
The court stripped Lin of his civil rights for five years and fined him NT$15.8 million.
Court rulings should be respected for their professionalism and fairness. However, Tuesday’s ruling fell far short of public expectations, because few people agree with the Taipei District Court that a government official accepting a bribe does not constitute corruption.
Then there are questions about the NT$63 million that Chen admitted giving to Lin. The court previously confiscated NT$33 million from Lin and now it has fined him NT$15.8 million. That would appear to leave Lin holding NT$14.2 million, and yet the court has still ruled he is not guilty of corruption.
Equally bizarre is that the court showed leniency toward Chen for admitting to investigators that he gave Lin a bribe of NT$63 million, and yet it found Lin not guilty of accepting the bribe.
No wonder the ruling left many people scratching their heads.
However, many have also been puzzled by the lack of comment on the ruling from the nation’s leaders.
Rewind to Nov. 5, 2010, when the same court, citing insufficient evidence, acquitted former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), of charges of money laundering and taking bribes from bankers in exchange for help manipulating bank mergers. Just two days later, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said the “judiciary, while it needs to be independent, cannot be isolated from the public, let alone be opposed to the public’s reasonable expectations.”
Less than a week later, Chen Shui-bian was found guilty of bribery in a final verdict in the Longtan land acquisition case.
Ma was quick to speak out when a verdict on Chen Shui-bian did not meet “the public’s reasonable expectations,” but he has not lectured the court for not heeding public opinion on Lin’s case.
If the same “standard” and reasoning used by the Taipei District Court in Lin’s case are to be upheld, then the corruption convictions against Chen Shui-bian and his wife should be overturned because they too were merely “seeking profit through intimidation.”
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division has yet to decide whether it will appeal the verdict in Lin’s case.
If it does and the Taiwan High Court upholds the district court’s ruling, then the nation’s judiciary will have lost any hope of ending the public’s ongoing disappointment and frustration with it.
The public will also know exactly who to blame.
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