Calls for amnesty for jailed former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) have unexpectedly become a central issue for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as it prepares to elect a new party chairperson. This makes a mockery of Taiwan’s democratic movement and is an astonishing low point for the DPP.
The DPP has often accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who is also chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), of using Chen like a cash machine whenever he needs to score political points. The DPP has paid a heavy price for what happened under Chen’s leadership by losing two presidential and legislative elections. By now, however, the Chen cash machine is nearly empty and only has a marginal effect. It is ironic, then, that certain people are now dusting it off and giving Ma the chance to keep on using it.
There is nothing wrong with sympathy and compassion. It was fine for people to speak out and make sure that Chen got a fair hearing in court, and now his supporters are quite right to insist that he get proper access to medical treatment. Nobody would deny that.
It is not right, however, for the DPP to call for amnesty for Chen. To say this is not heartless — it is a matter of principle.
If Chen wants to own up to his wrongdoings and accept an official pardon, that is his own decision. The DPP has neither the right nor the duty to endorse whatever confessions Chen might or might not make.
Chen has admitted that he transferred and hid a large sum of money overseas, and that doing so was morally and legally questionable. These actions were clearly his personal behavior, and he left the DPP of his own accord to draw a line between himself and the party. The fact that he did so shows that he can still tell right from wrong, take responsibility for his own actions and face up to the issues in a court of law.
When Chen said he was innocent, DPP supporters believed him and insisted that the judiciary must give him a fair trial. However, now that he is trying to get out of jail, he has changed his tune, kowtowing and owning up to his crimes. Are the same people that supported him before now supposed to beg for mercy on his behalf?
Having come up with the idea of amnesty, Chen’s family and lawyers have latched on to the DPP, insisting that it take a stand on the issue. This puts the party in a quandary that is hard to get out of. As for Ma, all he needs to do is sit tight. No matter whether he responds to the issue or not, he still stands to gain from it.
If the DPP endorsed Chen’s confessions and called for him to be officially pardoned, it would make it easy for the KMT to brand the DPP as a party that endorses corruption. It would transform Chen’s individual behavior into a collective sin of the whole DPP, and that association would be difficult to shake off. It would also not be in keeping with Chen’s original intention when he quit the DPP, and drew a line between the party and himself.
Over the years, the DPP has won and lost elections because of Chen, but now it must not beg the government to pardon him, otherwise it will lose its footing and get itself into a big dilemma.
Chen has no justification for stirring up divisions in the DPP and even less justification for asking the party to join him in owning up to the things he did wrong. Chen knows full well that if the DPP is plagued by internal divisions and gets labeled as corrupt, it will likely be a mortal wound from which the party might never recover.
James Wang is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
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
RSS