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
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS