Ever since the world saw former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) handcuffed on Nov. 12 before he was whisked away to a detention center, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has made such a mess of the case against him that regardless of the final ruling (pre-trial hearings opened yesterday), doubt will remain as to whether Chen received the rights that are usually conferred upon defendants in a democratic system.
As a result of numerous leaks to the media, open personal grudges by KMT officials, judicial gerrymandering and unsavory “skits,” what could have been a case backed by solid evidence has turned into what law professor Jerome Cohen, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) former mentor at Harvard University, last week compared to a “circus.” Given this, with the possible exception of die-hard pan-blue Chen bashers, the majority of us will find it difficult to accept a “guilty” verdict — a foregone conclusion, judging by the wind — without skepticism.
As a result, a benchmark in the nation’s history will be clouded by lingering questions about impartiality, political vengeance and government meddling in the judiciary — developments that hardly resonate with democratic nation-building.
The announcement last week by the Taipei District Court that Chen’s hearings would not be broadcast — unless the presiding judge decides otherwise, which is highly unlikely — can only undermine the judiciary’s legitimacy in the eyes of Taiwanese, or at least raise even more questions. While Article 90 of the Organic Act of Court Organization (法院組織法) does give courts the right to legally prevent broadcasts, given the stature of the accused and the implications for the future of the nation, an exception could have been made.
Of course, anyone who witnessed Chen’s performance as a lawyer in the 1980s defending such luminaries as future Democratic Progressive Party chairman and leader of the Kaohsiung Incident Huang Hsin-chieh (黃信介) would be aware that allowing Chen to appear on TV screens in every household during the hearings would spell great trouble for prosecutors — and by rebound the KMT. But given the circumstances and all the questions that have surrounded the case since Chen was taken into custody, allowing the public to view the proceedings, rather than the censored leaks we are likely to be served by the authorities, would have been the proper thing to do. In fact, if prosecutors were so certain, as they seem, of the air-tightness of their charges against the former president, they would not hesitate to make the process fully transparent.
After more than a month of blunders and reversals highlighted by criticism both at home and abroad about the questionable lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary, prosecutors had a chance to set things straight by allowing some light into the process. Rather, they chose to keep everything in the dark, a decision that is certain to fuel further speculation that Chen may indeed have been a political sacrificial lamb rather than a man in high office who abused his powers to steal from public coffers.
As a result of the mishandled case and the circus-like atmosphere, prosecutors have put themselves into an uncomfortable corner. Having reached a point where only transparence could dispel suspicions (which would mean giving Chen air time), they elected to go the authoritarian way, where court rulings are made in secret, away from public scrutiny.
Ideas matter. They especially matter in world affairs. And in communist countries, it is communist ideas, not supreme leaders’ personality traits, that matter most. That is the reality in the People’s Republic of China. All Chinese communist leaders — from Mao Zedong (毛澤東) through Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), from Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) through to Xi Jinping (習近平) — have always held two key ideas to be sacred and self-evident: first, that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infallible, and second, that the Marxist-Leninist socialist system of governance is superior to every alternative. The ideological consistency by all CCP leaders,
The US on Friday hosted the second Global COVID-19 Summit, with at least 98 countries, including Taiwan, and regional alliances such as the G7, the G20, the African Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attending. Washington is also leading a proposal to revise one of the most important documents in global health security — the International Health Regulations (IHR) — which are to be discussed during the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) that starts on Sunday. These two actions highlight the US’ strategic move to dominate the global health agenda and return to the core of governance, with the WHA
In the past 30 years, globalization has given way to an international division of labor, with developing countries focusing on export manufacturing, while developed countries in Europe and the US concentrate on internationalizing service industries to drive economic growth. The competitive advantages of these countries can readily be seen in the global financial market. For example, Taiwan has attracted a lot of global interest with its technology industry. The US is the home of leading digital service companies, such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The country holds a virtual oligopoly of the global market for consumer digital
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.” Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.” First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with
RSS