Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is serving a 17-and-a-half year prison sentence and there are more cases under investigation that could see him receive another conviction. If given any further prison sentences, Chen could very well end up dying behind bars, a scenario he talked about in an article he wrote for the Chinese-language Next Magazine titled “The Death of a Former President.”
In the article, Chen, in order to plead with the deep-blue camp, ignored the danger that pro-green academics like Wu Nai-teh (吳乃德) might reproach him for going against the principles of transitional justice by citing his initiative to amend the Statute Governing Preferential Treatment to Retired Presidents and Vice Presidents (卸任總統副總統禮遇條例) several years ago to legalize the special privileges given to former first lady Soong Mayling (宋美齡).
It is very rare for a president to get locked up for life in any part of the world, and there are not many countries where prison sentences for corrupt officials are as heavy as in Taiwan, where one could be given life in prison. Had Chen been the president of a Western democratic nation, there is no way he would have been handed down such a heavy sentence. This is not because Western democracies are more tolerant of corrupt leaders, or because they invoke special pardons or medical parole, but because corruption among Western officials is nowhere near as widespread as it is in Asia.
Western countries do have problems with government corruption, but the sentences given to officials are much lower than in Taiwan. In Germany, the highest sentence is three years, in Japan it is five to 15 years and in the UK it is 14 years. Even in Mongolia, which is hardly an advanced democracy, former Mongolian president Nambaryn Enkhbayar was sentenced to four years for corruption.
In China, the maximum penalty for corruption is still the death sentence. However, because the feudal idea that senior officials should not receive the death penalty still prevails in China, lower-ranking civil servants are often the ones who are sentenced to death, while higher-ranking government officials, although their corruption is among the most serious in the world, are normally only brought to court when they mess things up politically. Even after sentencing, such people are mostly held under house arrest, stay in luxurious prisons, or are released on medical parole. They are not locked up for life, especially if it is a former president.
In South Korea, which like Taiwan is deeply influenced by traditional Chinese culture, corrupt officials are also given the death sentence. They have set a world record in giving heavy sentences to a string of former presidents, but none of them died in prison, apart from former president Roh Moo-hyun, who committed suicide out of shame while being investigated for corruption. Former South Korean presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were given a life sentence and 17 years respectively, but were both pardoned after admitting their wrongdoing and repenting.
It will look very bad if Taiwan locks up a former president until he dies. Unfortunately, Taiwan is not a country that hands down light sentences for corruption and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been unwilling to exercise his right to pardon.
To avoid locking Chen up until he dies, suggestions for medical parole and house arrest similar to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) practices have been made.
In all honesty, while house arrest, prisons for the elite and medical parole were not as common during Taiwan’s authoritarian era as they are in China, they did exist, as did special pardons. However, long before the Chen case occurred, these measures were strongly criticized by the dangwai (黨外) democracy movement and later by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as being remnants of feudal times that lacked any legal basis.
Although Chen will not be given a special pardon, he can still ask for medical parole. Recent opinion polls show that more than 50 percent of respondents supported releasing Chen on medical parole, showing that the public is sympathetic to the idea that no other countries would let a former president die in prison. DPP leaders and legislators have shown their full support for granting Chen medical parole and the proposal has been voted on and supported by seven city and county councils so far.
However, Ma continues to refuse to grant the former president medical parole, citing reasons such as “following the law” and “fairness.” The key to this position is probably that support for medical parole is still too weak at only just over half of the public, or 51 percent, implying that the public is having a hard time identifying with, understanding and forgiving Chen. When Chen’s sentence was finalized, an opinion poll in the Chinese-language Apple Daily revealed that only 19.83 percent of respondents said they believed the sentence was too heavy, while 34 percent thought it was too light.
This shows that the public strongly disapproves of Chen’s actions. In a recent opinion poll conducted by TVBS, only 29 percent of respondents supported the idea of a special pardon for Chen, far less than the 50 percent who opposed the idea. This again shows the low level of public compassion for him. If Chen wants to strengthen public support for his eventual release so he does not end up dying behind bars, he should try to obtain understanding and acceptance as well as the public’s sympathy.
Opinion polls imply that if Chen keeps insisting that he is innocent, he will not be accepted and forgiven by the public. In any society, the majority of people will recognize an admittance of one’s mistakes and will respond with forgiveness to an apology. If Chen were to admit his mistakes, he would be choosing the special pardon route exemplified in South Korea. Such a move is the strongest embodiment of “soft power” and if Ma did anything to try to oppose Chen using this, he would have to deal with a great deal of public dissatisfaction.
The current situation regarding medical parole for Chen could only happen in Taiwan. Even if Ma were to relent and adopt Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) suggestion that a medical review board composed of pan-blue and pan-green members be established, it would still be very hard to build a consensus on the matter based on fair and legal principles, so one should try not to get too optimistic about it.
Regardless of what is needed to obtain Chen’s release, many people have already made sacrifices and put in a lot of hard work on his behalf, so it is time that Chen makes an effort to do a few things that the majority of people could agree with and appreciate.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS