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.”
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS