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.
honorary research associate, history program, La Trobe University, Melbourne
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
Jean Pierre Cabestan,
professor and head, Department of Government and International Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University
professor emeritus, University of the District of Columbia, and former president, North American Taiwanese Professors’ Association
associate professor of political science, China and Taiwan studies, University of Lyon
chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
June Teufel Dreyer,
professor of political science, University of Miami
US foreign service (retired), The George Washington University graduate program
executive director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
assistant professor of history, University of Miami
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
professor of international relations, London School of Economics and Political Science
former chief of staff to late US senator Claiborne Pell, Washington
professor of Asian -languages and studies, Monash University, Melbourne
professor emeritus of history, Hamline University, and author
associate professor, National Taipei University (retired), and author
former member of the Canadian parliament and secretary of state for Asia-Pacific
professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
professor emeritus of East Asian Studies, Princeton University
associate professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Pennsylvania
The Very Reverend
former president, Canadian Council of Churches, and former moderator, the United Church of Canada
associate professor of political science, Austin College
associate professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Manitoba
associate professor (retired), Shih Chien University
associate professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute, chair of the Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, editor: Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
adjunct professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith University
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto
professor of law, Georgetown University
Fairbank Center, Harvard University, and author
Reverend Milo Thornberry,
John Tkacik Jr,
US foreign service (retired) and independent commentator, Washington
lauder professor of international relations, University of Pennsylvania
Gerrit van der Wees,
editor: Taiwan Communique, Washington
Chair, Institute of Social and Societal Policy, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria
professor emeritus, the London School of Economics, and visiting scholar, George Washington University
president of DC International Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
Retired army major general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰), a former head the Taoyuan chapter of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) veterans branch, on Wednesday last week said that chapter head Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) — who dismissed Yu from his position — “would rather see cross-strait unification than yield to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government.” The statement ignited public debate, as it was the first time that a retired officer loyal to the nation — and the KMT — said out loud what has long been rumored among the public: Some KMT members would rather work with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)