With President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) second and final term set to expire next month, whether he would pardon former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) before he steps down on May 20 has become a topic of debate.
Following the motions by the Kaohsiung City Council last week and the Tainan City Council last month urging Ma to pardon his predecessor, Taipei City Councilor Chiang Chih-ming’s (江志銘) similar appeal yesterday requesting a presidential pardon for Chen also garnered the support of 26 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Taipei city councilors, who agreed that Ma, by doing so, can help bring about reconciliation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
However, the Presidential Office rejected the calls to pardon Chen, saying that several cases involving Chen have yet to be finalized. Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) said that Chen must first plead guilty before president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) could consider granting him a special pardon.
Chen, on medical parole since Jan. 5 last year after serving six years of a 20-year sentence for graft convictions related to his presidency, said the charges against him are part of a political vendetta by the KMT government in retaliation for his eight years in power promoting Taiwanese independence.
After his second term ended in 2008, Chen was sentenced to life in prison in 2009 for money laundering and bribery — a term reduced to 20 years after appeals. Yet Chen’s trial, as well as the investigation and prosecution of his cases, have been criticized as being dotted with procedural flaws.
Rather than dwelling on the subject of whether Chen should be granted a special pardon, to ensure fair treatment for Chen, it would be more fitting for the incoming government to set up a special committee to examine if there really were any procedural flaws, or even political interference, in the trial of the former president.
During Chen’s corruption and money laundering trial, a panel of judges in December 2008 ordered that Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) be replaced by Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓).
The switch led to speculation that the decision was procedurally flawed and politically motivated, prompting then-president of the Yilan District Court Huang Jui-hua (黃瑞華) and then-Shilin District Court judge Hung Ying-hua (洪英花) to criticize the decision and the procedures as flawed.
Hung said at the time that because changing the judges was illegal, Tsai’s guilty verdicts were invalid.
There were also media reports at the time alleging the Special Investigation Division prosecutors had “told” Chinatrust Charity Foundation chairman Jeffrey Koo Jr (辜仲諒) what to say in court and offered Koo, who was involved in a scandal over Chinatrust’s bid to buy rival Mega Financial Holdings Co, immunity in exchange for his testimony in Chen’s case.
If Tsai is sincere in her pledge that her administration would pursue fairness and justice, then all the questionable judicial proceedings dotting Chen’s trials should be re-examined to grant Chen due justice. By reinvestigating these cases, Tsai could also realize her pledge of pursuing transitional justice by overhauling the nation’s judicial system and bringing anyone who abused judicial authority and used the judiciary as a political tool to justice.
Granting Chen a presidential pardon would be tantamount to acknowledging that he is guilty of the charges against him.
As Chen and his supporters say that the charges against him were leveled due to a political vendetta by the KMT government, a new investigation should be conducted to determine if there was a miscarriage of justice during Ma’s term and restore justice for Chen.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS