On Dec. 5, the Supreme Court handed down a guilty verdict in the long-running court case against former minister of transportation and communications Kuo Yao-chi (郭瑤琪), who served in 2006 under then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Kuo has a master’s degree in urban planning from the University of London.
In 2008, in the early years of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, she and many other former DPP officials were accused of corruption and charged.
In some cases, such as that of former president Chen, this led to conviction and imprisonment.
However, the trial and treatment of the former president had clear political overtones. In contrast, many other trials led to acquittal.
In Kuo’s case, legal proceedings dragged on for years. In her first and second trials in 2009 and 2010, before the Taipei District Court and by the Taiwan High Court respectively, she was declared not guilty.
Prosecutors continued to appeal, and in two retrials before the Taiwan High Court, in 2011 and in a second this year, she was found guilty.
The case against her, however, was based on the testimony of a single witness, Lee Tsung-hsien (李宗賢), son of Lee Ching-po (李清波), who is the chairman of Nan Ren Hu Group, a large industrial conglomerate with close connections to the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Lee Tsung-hsien had initially testified on behalf of his father that he had delivered the equivalent of US$20,000 in cash packed in two iron tea boxes to the then-minister.
However, he later revoked his testimony, and during a raid on the former minister’s home, prosecutors did not find any tea boxes or cash.
The accusation against former minister Kuo that she took money from the Nan Ren Hu chairman is highly peculiar, as Nan Ren Hu did not bid for government procurement during that period.
The conclusion by the High Court and Supreme Court that there was a quid pro quo relationship is even more astounding.
The political bias of the courts is evident, as Kuo has now been convicted of accepting an amount equivalent to US$20,000, while in the case of the former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世), the courts mysteriously dropped the corruption charges despite prosecutors having seized large amounts of cash from Lin’s home.
Lin had been charged with bribery in the amount of at least US$2.1 million, which is more than 100 times the amount that Kuo allegedly accepted.
The Formosan Association for Public Affairs is convinced that this is yet another case of judicial system abuse by the Ma administration: Going after members of the previous DPP administration of former president Chen while whitewashing serious crimes within its own ranks.
We have documented about 48 cases against former and current DPP officials that can be considered political persecution.
As Taiwanese-Americans, we appeal to the government and Congress of the US to express their concern about this erosion of justice and lack of fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system.
Taiwan can only be a strong democracy if its judicial institutions adhere to the basic principles of fairness and due process of law.
Mark Kao is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese-American grassroots organization based in Washington.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS