Editorial: Lee sets an example for pan-blues

On Wednesday, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) became the first former head of state to take the witness stand in an open court. He testified in the case of former China Development Holding Corp chairman Liu Tai-ying (劉泰英), who is being tried on charges of theft, corruption, breach of trust and forgery, among others, over various corporate scandals, including one implicating Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) investments in Zanadau Development Corp.

Lee already served as a witness in a closed-door investigative hearing for the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal, in which People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) is accused of embezzling KMT funds during his term as the party's secretary-general. While unusual, Lee's testimony behind closed doors was far less significant than his appearance in court on Wednesday.

The importance of this event can only be understood when considered in relation to the history of Taiwan's political culture. Traditionally, KMT leaders were held in a regard by some that almost amounted to worship. This is well demonstrated by the emotional response of some -- crying, wailing and crawling on their knees -- to the recent death of former first lady Soong Mayling (宋美齡). These people cannot tolerate anything less than praise for Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his family members, let alone face the prospect of them testifying in court. No, that would be blasphemy.

Lee, by contrast, has served as a role model by demonstrating the level of maturity of the nation's democracy. He asked for no privileges in performing his civic duties as a citizen of this country. Just like any other citizen, he did what was asked of him, arriving in court around 9am and enduring a lengthy wait while Liu and Zanadau's majority shareholder, Su Hui-chen (蘇惠珍), testified. It wasn't until 1pm that Lee was called to testify.

Even more inspirational is the fact that Lee, who is in his 80s and has undergone several operations on his heart, insisted on standing throughout the three-to-four-hour session, despite the court's offer to let him answer questions seated. This was his way of showing respect for the court.

After he left court, Lee also made some very meaningful remarks, which serve as food for thought for some people who continue to dwell in an outdated era. Lee said he was happy to testify because the rule of law is imperative to democracy.

In response to Lee's candor, both the KMT and the PFP legislative caucuses said that Lee should tell everything he knows about the case and that prosecutors must prosecute the case to the fullest extent.

One help but wonder why the pan-blue camp doesn't demand the same from themselves in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal.

They have been consistently uncooperative ever since prosecutors reopened the case, dismissing the investigation as political oppression. But the fact that even Lee, who obviously has a close relationship with the Democratic Progressive Party, is being summoned to testify in corruption and bribery cases more than amply demonstrates the independence of our judiciary and prosecutors.

It was only after Lee testified in the Chung Hsing case that Soong finally asked the prosecutors' office to let him put his side of the story in a face-to-face meeting with Lee. Moreover, at least one key figure in the case, Soong's sister-in-law Chen Pi-yun (陳碧雲), who is expected to be called to give evidence soon, appears to be missing. This kind of attitude is worlds apart from the example set by Lee.