Mon, Feb 19, 2001 - Page 8 News List

The Soong case hurts Taiwan's legal system

By Chen Ro-jinn 陳柔縉

In the 1981 local government elections, Chiang Tsung-jen (江聰仁), then township chief of Kungkuan (公館) township, Miaoli County, insisted on running for the post of Miaoli County Commissioner, thereby posing a serious threat to Hsieh Chih-ting (謝金汀), who had been nominated by the KMT. Both then-KMT heavyweight Sung Shih-hsuan (宋時選) and the KMT's youth commission chief at that time, Lien Chan (連戰), who had been a classmate of Chiang at National Taiwan University, tried to convince him to change his registered domicile in order to get him disqualified from the election.

According to Chiang's biography, "the KMT ordered the Kungkuan Household Registration Office to be opened especially for me on Retrocession Day, a national holiday. But I insisted on not withdrawing from the election ...."

Traditionally, the KMT has used a variety of tricks, including money or political pressure, to carry out its wishes and clear away any obstacles in elections.

Compared to those tricks, the method used in the Chiang case -- trying to manipulate the local administration office -- seems to be a minor one. I also believe that the KMT, at that time, had no sense of guilt about its wrongdoing since it was common for it to manipulate such local offices 20 years ago.

The absurdity of its illegal actions, however, now appear clear and significant.

Shortly after prosecutors announced they would not indict James Soong (宋楚瑜), the KMT's decision not to seek a reconsideration of the case -- for political reasons -- finally put the scandal to rest.

Because of the recent chaos in Taiwan's political scene, many people have failed to take a serious look at the case and its impact on the nation's judicial system.

Since the opposition alliance might collapse if the KMT insisted on seeking a reconsideration, some people might even feel Soong was lucky to escape prosecution. If he had not, not only might the dispute over the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (核四) continue, but the opposition parties might also lose the year-end elections, or even the 2004 presidential election.

Clearly, Taiwan's politicians have not yet realized that they are damaging the principle of judicial independence, as well as the dignity of the law by putting political considerations first.

Do they need to wait another 20 years to understand the absurdity of their actions? How could prosecutors go to Soong's home and question him there? How could prosecutors not question former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝)?

Theoretically, the law is always superior to politics. Thus, politicians should pursue their political ends within the confines of the law. In Taiwan, however, the tradition is that politics is above the law.

Although the people of Taiwan have a fairly high level of education and many of our politicians are highly educated, they only talk moralistically. Once the law becomes entangled with politics, their natural tendency to believe that politics is superior usually leads to the law being abused by them.

Opportunities are usually rare if we want to break a tradition. The Chung Hsing Bills (興票案) scandal was such an opportunity, a chance to emerge from the shadow of politics because all parties involved are powerful politicians.

Unfortunately, the case was handled carelessly. As time goes by, the Judicial Reform Foundation's (民間司改會) complaints are weakening.

This story has been viewed 2769 times.
TOP top