The ruling by the Taipei District Court on Nov. 5 finding former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife not guilty in a bribery case was construed by many — including this author — as a sign that the judiciary under the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration was beginning to reassert its independence. Reaction to the news by the pan-blue camp was so strident, and the decision so antithetical to what ostensibly has been a policy of keeping Chen in check, that the court appeared to have laid to rest fears that the judiciary had become little more than a conveyor belt for the Ma government.
Commenting on the ruling, some elements within the pan-green camp, meanwhile, said this was only part of a series of rulings that ultimately would fully exonerate the former president. Chen’s smile as he emerged from a police van on his way to court for another case earlier this week also spoke volumes about how he interpreted this unexpected development.
However, we should refrain from jumping to conclusions and assuming that this proves the independence of the judiciary. In fact, the timing — less than a month prior to the Nov. 27 special municipality elections — is itself suspicious. No sooner had Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) announced the decision than the KMT shifted into high gear and turned the court ruling and by rebound Chen, into an instrument to mobilize pan-blue voters.
Admittedly there is little evidence to prove that such a sinister plot is afoot. That said, once we put the ruling in the context of elections in which Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates are not performing as well as expected and where a high turnout among pan-blue voters on Nov. 27 could be a deciding factor in very close races in Taipei and Sinbei (the name to be given to Taipei County when it is upgraded at the end of the year), we may be tempted to revisit our assumptions.
What if, facing the possibility of losing the traditionally pan-blue Taipei City and currently KMT-controlled Taipei County in an election that is perceived as a “referendum” on Ma’s presidency and a bellwether for the 2012 presidential election, the Ma administration pressured the judiciary into finding Chen not guilty only for that decision to reinvigorate deeply ingrained anti-Chen (and associated anti-corruption) sentiment among the pan-blue camp?
Under such a scenario, the strategy would be to tap into those emotions to transcend, and ultimately overturn, general lack of enthusiasm for the KMT candidates, who for the most part have run largely uninspired campaigns. Why else would a rally in support of Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) re-election bid scheduled for Nov. 21 suddenly turn into a protest against corruption? Why else would the KMT call upon voters to express their “anger” at the court decision by voting for their candidates?
If political machinations indeed are behind the court ruling, Ma’s indignation and crass references to the “will” and “expectations of the people” would have been nothing more than theater, cover for a temporary, self-inflicted setback meant for tactical gain.
After all, although Chen has been found not guilty in that particular case, the ruling can be appealed and he faces several other charges that, if found guilty, would keep him locked up for many years to come (the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday sentencing Chen to 11 years in jail in a land purchase scandal is a case in point).
Another reason to suspect the ruling may be part of the KMT’s political strategy stems from the uncomfortable position in which the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) now finds itself. While it surely welcomes the ruling as confirmation that the party is not corrupt, it also threatens to bring back to the surface a number of issues surrounding Chen from which the DPP has sought to distance itself in recent years. In fact, if Chen again became the focus of attention, it would sow disunity within the party and could undermine its performance in the elections.
Conversely, if the DPP came out and accused Ma and the judiciary of using the ruling as part of a political game, its critics could fire back by saying that the DPP disagrees with a ruling that proves it is not corrupt — in other words, an admission that it is, in fact, corrupt.
Although there is no doubt that the DPP itself made some electoral gains following allegations of corruption involving the Hau administration over the Taipei International Flora Expo and the Xinsheng Overpass rejuvenation project, those revelations came too early in the election to have a substantial impact on the ultimate outcome and will likely have been forgotten by the time voters head to the polling stations.
As many political commentators would tell us, in an electoral race, only the last three weeks really matter. We have just entered that period and the Chen case, along with the attendant keyword “corruption,” is fresh in every voter’s mind. Fresh enough enough to mobilize voters who otherwise might have stayed home.
J. Michael Cole is deputy news editor at the Taipei Times.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty