The sanctity of life is not a laughing matter, including the life of a prisoner, whose imprisonment should not be considered a deprivation of his or her basic rights. In the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), his medical rights are in jeopardy. Regrettably, however, reports of Chen’s deteriorating health suggest President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government have not been taking the life of the nation’s former head of state seriously.
Chen, serving a 17-and-a-half-year prison term on corruption charges, was sent to Taoyuan General Hospital on Tuesday last week for a check-up and returned to Taipei Prison that same afternoon, before being rushed to the hospital the following night after complaining of pain when urinating. After Chen underwent an extended examination, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test found a 4mm by 4mm trace of a cerebral vascular accident in his right frontal lobe.
At the invitation of Chen’s family, a further study of the MRI images by a group of physicians, including Taipei Veterans General Hospital physician Kuo Cheng-deng (郭正典), Taipei General Hospital vice president Kuo Chang-feng (郭長豐) and Mackay Memorial Hospital psychiatrist Chen Chiao-chicy (陳喬琪), suggested Chen Shui-bian has not only one, but several traces of cerebral vascular accidents in his right frontal lobe.
Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊), who suffered a minor stroke in 2007 herself, said after visiting Chen Shui-bian on Tuesday that she was most disturbed by his obvious speech difficulties. Noting that stuttering can be caused by brain damage, National Taiwan University Hospital physician Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) yesterday suggested that Chen might develop dementia if he fails to receive proper medical attention.
All the reports pointing to the former president’s deteriorating physical and mental state beg the question: How credible has the Taipei Prison been in its statements time and time again dismissing the public’s concern for his health? It is little wonder there is growing public speculation questioning whether the Ma administration is placing political considerations above Chen Shui-bian’s human rights.
Ma has taken pride in his efforts to protect human rights, giving himself a pat on the back several times, trumpeting how it was under his watch that the nation signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2009.
Ma should revisit the two covenants and practice what he preaches. In particular, he should look up the first clause in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Part III, Article 6, which states: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” He should also look at the first clause in Article 10, which states: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
Ma may also want to remember that Article 58 of the Prison Act (監獄行刑法) stipulates that a prison administration may apply to have a prisoner given medical parole or sent to an outside hospital for treatment if the prison cannot provide adequate treatment.
A fair number of people have been quick to dismiss the Chen family’s pleas for medical parole, taunting the family and physicians for exaggerating Chen Shui-bian’s ailments and ridiculing him for “faking it.”
It is indeed regrettable when the professionalism of physicians is brought into disrepute. However, if Ma is suspicious of the calls by Ko and the others, branding them “pan-green physicians,” why doesn’t he assemble a medial team of his own choosing — one preferably headed by Department of Health Minister Chiu Wen-ta (邱文達), a renowned neurosurgeon — to determine Chen Shui-bian’s physical and mental condition?
If Ma and his government continue to be blinded by political considerations and take Chen Shui-bian’s health lightly, it is not hyperbole to suggest that they could one day find themselves labeled as his “murderers.”
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS