In response to requests that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) be released from jail for medical treatment, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) remarked a few days ago that it is a legal issue and not a political one. I am sure the majority of rational people will agree with this. However, we really should ask whether Ma has really viewed the developments in the Chen corruption case from a purely legal perspective.
It would seem that he has not. Ma has interpreted the law to meet his own interests, saying that releasing Chen for medical treatment is tantamount to medical parole and that would be letting him off the hook.
The majority of observers believe that Ma has some very “political” motives and that he is using these ideas to win over deep blue supporters at a time when his public approval rating has fallen to about 20 percent.
If we look back a little further, we see how the pan-blue camp, and this includes Ma, has used Chen as a sure-fire way to win votes.
For example, in this year’s presidential election, the pan-blue camp and Ma spread rumors that the associates of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) were all members of a corrupt group. Clearly, in Ma’s mind, nothing to do with Chen has ever been only about the law.
This casts doubt on the idea that Chen’s release for medical treatment is purely legal in nature. As a former president, Chen is no ordinary inmate. Any news about Chen is potentially politically explosive. As a result, caution is needed when dealing with the issue and it is understandable why Ma is not willing to give in on this matter.
However, it is precisely because Chen is not an ordinary inmate that there should be more debate on whether he should be subject to normal legal regulations when it comes to his incarceration and medical treatment. To put it more bluntly, hardly an eyebrow would be raised at the news of the death of the average inmate behind bars. However, if that inmate was Chen, it would be an entirely different matter.
In 1955, former general Sun Li-jen (孫立人), notorious for fighting the Japanese in China, was accused of crimes such as “sheltering communist bandits” and “mutiny.” According to the laws of the time, he should have received the death penalty. However, Sun’s status meant that the most then-president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) could do was place him under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Chen should be punished by the law for the crimes he committed. However, as a former president, he does have a special status. This special status also means that it is impossible for politics not to affect his prison sentence, as well as the question of whether he should be released for medical treatment. Politicians of all affiliations are very well aware of this.
This being the case, it is best that we avoid disingenuous statements about the law in an attempt to sweep political issues under the carpet. Chen’s treatment is a political issue and it needs to be recognized as such.
Hsu Yu-fang is a professor of Sinophone literature at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS