Earlier this week I was one of the first foreigners to visit former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at the Taipei Detention Center in Tucheng (土城). The visit was severely restricted. We saw Chen through two very thick panes of glass separated by insulating air as well as substantial vertical steel bars. No sound could penetrate this barrier and we talked with Chen though phones that were old and had a scratchy sound quality. As we could easily see, guards monitored our conversation.
We could not take anything into the reception room, even a notebook or a pen, so we could not record what Chen said. On the other hand, prison officers were polite and efficient and did not hassle us in any way.
Every Monday to Friday, Chen is allowed one 30-minute visit with a maximum of two visitors. On the first Sunday of each month, he has an additional visit, though this too is limited to two people and 30 minutes and is also conducted by telephone through the thick bars and glass.
I should make clear at the outset that I have frequently and publicly criticized Chen’s presidency. In addition, my knowing Chen for many years is not unique because I have also known former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for some 15 years and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for about eight years.
Many foreign observers, including me, have raised serious questions about the justice system in Taiwan. Traditionally, crimes of embezzlement and corruption in Taiwan have not required detention prior to conviction.
For example, after Ma was indicted on corruption charges on Feb. 13, 2007, he remained free, despite the severity of the charges, until found not guilty on Aug. 14 that year. Similarly, no one else indicted on corruption charges remains in prison prior to conviction, except Chen.
Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?
Many observers have noted that when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came into office in 2000, it retained many KMT office-holders. In contrast, when the KMT returned to power last year, it quickly got rid of DPP office-holders and filled positions from its own ranks.
Many observers believe that the current KMT administration genuinely hates Chen and they expect that the KMT will do its best to keep him in prison as long as possible.
The difficulty in a democracy is that the voters usually throw out the government and put in the opposition. A few years ago, who could have predicted that the high-riding Republicans in the US, who dominated all branches of government, would be so severely defeated last year?
Similarly, the high-riding KMT of last year is already facing many problems, including administrative incompetence, an incompetence highlighted by the devastation of Typhoon Morakot. Will a future DPP government pay back the KMT with pre-conviction detentions and possibly long jail terms?
Another problem facing democratizing Taiwan is that the areas of both justice and the media have been slow to reform. In the media, many newspapers and TV stations had their origins in the authoritarian period and they continue to push similar beliefs in democratic Taiwan.
The former justice system, too, had many inexperienced “baby” judges and prosecutors just out of law school who did well in examinations but who had no life experience. Many were trained to accept KMT guidance with respect to judicial cases. The apparent manipulation of the judges hearing Chen’s case raises many fears that past practices continue.
Fortunately, the story is not all gloomy. After protests from overseas, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) declared that the use of handcuffs on Chen was inappropriate and he now goes to and from the courtroom without them.
In addition, Chen looks quite fit. He has lost the extra weight he appeared to have in previous photos and he is alert with relatively high morale.
Looking out through the two thick glass panes and the thick steel bars, he said we — the visitors — looked like we were in prison, while he felt free.
In fact, we were locked inside the reception room, but our door was eventually opened and we came out, while Chen went back to his cell.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian Languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS