This month has not been kind to the family of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). It began somewhat upbeat on Nov. 5 when the Taipei District Court returned a not guilty verdict on charges of corruption and money laundering against Chen and his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍). The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) instantly criticized the ruling, saying Chen and Wu had escaped a guilty verdict not because they were innocent, but because of a legal mistake. However, on Nov. 11, Chen and Wu were not so lucky when the Supreme Court upheld two bribery convictions, sentencing them to 11 years and eight years in prison for each charge. A few days later on Nov. 16, the Kaohsiung District Court ruled against Chen’s son, Chen Chih-chung (陳致中), in a libel suit he brought against Next Magazine, which earlier this year accused him of soliciting a prostitute.
Given its long affiliation with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the demise of the Chen family has been a political bonanza for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). No sooner did the court issue its Nov. 5 verdict than the KMT cried foul, declaring anti-corruption a theme for its election rally planned for yesterday. The Nov. 11 decision only increased the KMT’s indignation by confirming the injustice of the first not-guilty verdict.
Spin doctors have also used the Chen family’s misfortune to attack others. When DPP Chairperson and Sinbei City mayoral candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) refused last week to appear in a public debate with her KMT opponent, Eric Chu (朱立倫), Ma accused her of ducking questions about Chen.
The KMT brought unprecedented levels of corruption to Taiwan, so its outrage about the misdeeds of others is laughable, in particular given that Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) of the KMT is embroiled in his own corruption scandal involving construction projects for the Taipei International Flora Expo. These scandals have put a bump in his re--election bid. Unless we believe it is merely a coincidence that the Chen rulings were announced immediately before this week’s special municipality elections, then recent claims that the courts are finally acting independently of KMT control are clearly premature.
However, the DPP still has a problem, which is how to protect itself from the legal and political liabilities attached to its former leader. As a party chairman, a key ideologue, strategist, spokesman and as by far the DPP’s most successful candidate for office — winning the Taipei mayorship and the presidency twice — Chen Shui-bian is so closely identified with the DPP that an attempt to cut ties would only look disingenuous.
It would also be ungrateful. Chen was once dubbed “the son of Taiwan,” a name he most certainly earned. A democratic activist who served time prison during the KMT’s Martial Law era, he worked much of his life to reform a political system that was oppressive and corrupt. His sacrifices and those of his wife are a matter of public record.
Tsai’s response to hostile questions concerning the former president have been precisely correct: She supports Chen Shui-bian’s judicial rights as a citizen under the Constitution and she respects the judicial process in which he is tried. In better times, the former president would have agreed.
However, something more is needed and not just an acknowledgment of Chen Shui-bian’s honorable past. It may be that his greatest legacy will be to show that truly no one is above the law. There is no room for demagogues in democracy; and regardless of how successful, well meaning or momentarily powerful, we are all corruptible. This is the value of adequate checks and balances in the Constitution. It is also why judicial reform should be high on the national agenda.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS