Print

Mail

wiki links

Amnesty is key to special fund case

`Any change in the way such matters are dealt with should be effected by another branch of government.'

THE PAN-BLUE and pan-green camps have their own interpretations of the not guilty verdict for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in the special allowance fund trial. The pan-blue camp believes the judiciary has upheld Ma's innocence, while the pan-green camp is crying foul because the high court ruling mirrors Ma's defense.

Yet in the case of Kaohsiung's "walking fee" trial, in which city Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) prevailed, Ma criticized the justice system for lacking moral courage.

In short, Taiwan's politicians are abusing the courts: If any political figures are involved, the loser claims political persecution while the winner lauds the fairness of the system.

For Ma, a guilty verdict could not have been handed down one way or another because the ideological clash between the two camps had reached the point where no matter who was found guilty, chaos would have ensued.

This is especially true of the KMT. Finding Ma, the KMT's last hope, guilty would be tantamount to sentencing the pan-blue camp to an election loss, which might have caused a riot.

Furthermore, judges avoid making decisions that impinge on the election because finding a presidential candidate guilty helps the other candidate(s): Better allow the outcome of the election to be determined by the public than influence the decision with the verdict of a trial.

The justice system is different from politics. In politics, there is no absolute right or wrong. However, one either wins or loses a court case; there is no gray area. In other words, judges should not make decisions with an eye on political considerations.

Because of political conflict, the justice system cannot remain independent and often sways with trends in power.

For the sake of social order, it might be better to let special allowance suspects, for example, off the hook. However, to preserve the authority of the justice system, any change in the way such matters are dealt with should be effected by another branch of government.

Local and high courts have misinterpreted the nature of the special allowance funds, thinking them to be a part of a salary. They are nothing of the sort. They are public monies that fall under the category of business funds.

Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) claims that if he is elected president, there will be a general amnesty on special allowance cases. This is a good idea. Because Hsieh himself is not implicated in such a case, he can deal with the case impartially.

And unlike using judicial channels, having a president declare a general amnesty does not lead to repercussions for the judiciary and preserves its integrity.

The special allowance cases should be dealt with through a general amnesty rather than specific pardons.

However, a general amnesty also requires the approval of the legislature.

If the pan-blue and pan-green camps can show some restraint and allow the president to declare a general amnesty, they would be part of the solution to this mess.

On the one hand, a general amnesty will ensure social stability; on the other, it will increase the prestige of the office of president.

Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor of electrical engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University and head of the Association for the Promotion of Taiwan's Security.

TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
This story has been viewed 1451 times.