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.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did