Open letter to President Ma
Dear President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九),
We the undersigned, international academics, analysts and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, have for many years been keen observers of political developments in Taiwan. We were delighted when Taiwan made its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and we continue to care deeply for the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state.
However, during the past three years, many of us have felt it necessary to address publicly our concerns to you about the erosion of justice and democracy in Taiwan, most recently in April this year regarding the charges of the “36,000 missing documents” against a number of prominent former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials. We raised these issues as international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy.
At this time we express our deep concern about the charges against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), often referred to as “the father of Taiwan’s democracy,” who was indicted on June 30 on charges of allegedly channeling US$7.8 million from secret diplomatic funds into the Taiwan Research Institute. These charges and their timing raise a number of questions that are related both to the case itself and the integrity of the judicial system in Taiwan.
First, why did the prosecutors decide to pursue these charges at this time? The events allegedly occurred in the years 1994 and 1995, about 16 years ago. We have difficulty believing that prosecutors discovered evidence only recently, particularly in view of the fact that key evidence cited by the prosecutors was dismissed by a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 in a case involving former National Security Bureau chief accountant Hsu Ping-chiang (徐炳強), who was charged in connection with the missing diplomatic funds. Are these charges perhaps more directly related to the former president’s outspokenness on current political issues, and in particular to the upcoming presidential election?
The second issue is one of evenhandedness: The problem with the administration of secret diplomatic funds appears to be systemic, primarily because of the lack of transparency associated with the funds and vague guidelines for their use. Hence, if the former president is now charged, should fairness not demand that there be investigations, and charges, against other high officials who served at the same time, such as the vice president, premier and provincial governor, who had similar discretionary funds available to them?
The third issue relates to the impartiality of the judicial system. Since November 2008, there have been a number of indictments and charges against former DPP officials and others who were and are critical of your government. The case against Lee appears to be part of a deeply disturbing trend to use the judiciary against political opponents. While there is an obvious need to uphold the law in a democracy, this needs to be done fairly and evenhandedly, with no hint or appearance of any partiality.
Mr President, as head of state you bear overall responsibility for the state of affairs in Taiwan. In democratic systems, proper checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches are of the utmost importance. The executive and the legislative branches have a responsibility to exercise oversight and to balance activism in the judiciary, just as the judiciary serves a similar role with regard to the executive and legislative branches. Stating that your government abides by “judicial independence” is therefore not enough. It is essential that all participants in the judicial process — prosecutors, judges and lawyers — are fully imbued with the basic principle that the judiciary is scrupulously impartial and not given to any partisan preferences.
We, as members of the international academic community, are left with the impression that the indictments and practices of the judiciary in Taiwan over the past three years reflect a judicial system that is increasingly influenced by political considerations. There has been a regression in the accomplishments of Taiwan’s momentous democratization of the 1990s and 2000s. As good friends of Taiwan, we are deeply unsettled by this. It undermines Taiwan’s international image as a free and democratic nation.
Mr President, we therefore urge you and your government to ensure that the judicial system is held to the highest standards of objectivity and fairness. Taiwan has many challenges ahead of it and it cannot afford the political divisions created by the use of the judicial system for political purposes.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas Bartlett,
honorary research associate, history program, La Trobe University, Melbourne
Coen Blaauw,
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
Jean Pierre Cabestan,
professor and head, Department of Government and International Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University
Gordon Chang,
author
Wen-yen Chen,
professor emeritus, University of the District of Columbia, and former president, North American Taiwanese Professors’ Association
Stephane Corcuff,
associate professor of political science, China and Taiwan studies, University of Lyon
Michael Danielsen,
chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
June Teufel Dreyer,
professor of political science, University of Miami
Norman Getsinger,
US foreign service (retired), The George Washington University graduate program
Terri Giles,
executive director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
Stephen Halsey,
assistant professor of history, University of Miami
Mark Harrison,
senior lecturer, head of the Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania
Michael Rand Hoare,
emeritus reader at the University of London
Christopher Hughes,
professor of international relations, London School of Economics and Political Science
Thomas Hughes,
former chief of staff to late US senator Claiborne Pell, Washington
Bruce Jacobs,
professor of Asian -languages and studies, Monash University, Melbourne
Richard Kagan,
professor emeritus of history, Hamline University, and author
Jerome Keating,
associate professor, National Taipei University (retired), and author
David Kilgour,
former member of the Canadian parliament and secretary of state for Asia-Pacific
Andre Laliberte,
professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
Perry Link,
professor emeritus of East Asian Studies, Princeton University
Daniel Lynch,
associate professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
Victor Mair,
professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Pennsylvania
The Very Reverend
Bruce McLeod,
former president, Canadian Council of Churches, and former moderator, the United Church of Canada
Donald Rodgers,
associate professor of political science, Austin College
Terence Russell,
associate professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Manitoba
Michael Scanlon,
associate professor (retired), Shih Chien University
Christian Schafferer,
associate professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute, chair of the Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, editor: Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
David Schak,
adjunct professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith University
Michael Stainton,
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto
Peter Tague,
professor of law, Georgetown University
Ross Terrill,
Fairbank Center, Harvard University, and author
Reverend Milo Thornberry,
author
John Tkacik Jr,
US foreign service (retired) and independent commentator, Washington
Arthur Waldron,
lauder professor of international relations, University of Pennsylvania
Gerrit van der Wees,
editor: Taiwan Communique, Washington
Josef Weidenholzer,
Chair, Institute of Social and Societal Policy, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria
Michael Yahuda,
professor emeritus, the London School of Economics, and visiting scholar, George Washington University
Stephen Yates,
president of DC International Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS