The pan-green political camp has been on tenterhooks over whether former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who is on medical parole after serving six years of a 20-year sentence for corruption, should be granted amnesty.
A motion in favor of amnesty was on the agenda of Sunday’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) National Congress, but was not addressed after the congress lost its quorum.
Judging by the government’s response to the proposal, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is in a quandary. Granting Chen amnesty would not contravene the principles of the legal system, so the proposal merits a positive response.
As defined by Article 3 of the Amnesty Act (赦免法), there are two kinds of amnesty. The first involves exempting an offender from execution of a punishment, while the second involves declaring the punishment to be invalid.
The former is the rule and the latter is the exception, and its use is limited to exceptional circumstances, as stated in the Article 3.
In Chen’s case, the first type of amnesty would be applied. It would only exempt him from serving the remainder of his time in jail, rather than retracting the original sentence.
Out of consideration for Chen’s health, and based on the preferential treatment given to former presidents, it would be a matter of declaring that his sentence would not be carried out, while his offense would remain. This would demonstrate Tsai’s respect for the judiciary.
As to other cases involving Chen that are under trial, does the law still allow him to be pardoned?
The answer is probably “yes,” and this is a well-established interpretation in the field of constitutional law, because amnesty is specific in that it entails exemption from the execution of punishment for specific offenders and in specific cases.
As for the fait accompli of the final guilty verdict, it would not be affected by a pardon, as stated in Article 5-1 of the Amnesty Act.
If Chen is granted pardon, it will only be in relation to the case in which a final verdict has been reached and would not affect cases on trial.
Amnesty could be granted immediately without having to amend existing laws.
A pardon for Chen would not have to touch political raw nerves. There is no need for him to first apologize to the public, as some commentators have suggested, nor is there any need to worry about the verdict being interpreted as political repression.
The only political question is whether this is a case of giving preferential treatment to a former president.
However, this can be considered in the light of legislation concerning deferential treatment, so it does not contravene the nation’s legal system.
Chen was granted medical parole when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in government, so now that the DPP is in government, it would not be unreasonable for Tsai to pardon Chen.
Furthermore, if Chen were to regain his health while on parole, then according to law, he must return to jail to continue serving his sentence.
In that case, as a sick person who is partway through a prison sentence, he would find himself in a dilemma. If his illness is cured, he must go back to prison, so would it be better for him not to be cured?
To place someone in such a quandary is inhumane and all the more unacceptable for a sick inmate with the status of a former president.
If he were to be given an amnesty that exempts him from execution of his punishment, it would be fitting in terms of compassion and legal principle.
If Tsai announces such an amnesty for Chen, it would be acceptable to pan-blue and pan-green political camps, so it would not sharpen social confrontation. Considering that there is a legal basis for affording preferential treatment to former presidents, it could promote social harmony.
Hsu Wun-pin is a lawyer and honorary chairman of the Chinese Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
No state has ever formally recognized the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) as a legal entity. The reason is not a lack of legitimacy — the CTA is a functioning exile government with democratic elections and institutions — but the iron grip of realpolitik. To recognize the CTA would be to challenge the People’s Republic of China’s territorial claims, a step no government has been willing to take given Beijing’s economic leverage and geopolitical weight. Under international law, recognition of governments-in-exile has precedent — from the Polish government during World War II to Kuwait’s exile government in 1990 — but such recognition
RSS