Taiwan's "Erosion of Justice" saga continues

A course in dissembling

Beginning in November 2008, when former President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was first jailed after a long trial by media, a series of open letters on the erosion of justice in Taiwan under the administration of current President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) began. Fourteen months later, the deceptive replies to these letters still come, and each time, they fail to honestly and logically address the issues within. Below, I will discuss the latest of these replies.

January 8, 2009
Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) churned out "A GIO response to Richard Kagan" (Professor Emeritus of History at Hamline University and one of the signatories of the November 9, 2009 "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars" who separately wrote a criticism of Su's nonsensical reply to an earlier open letter). Kagan's letter appeared in the Taipei Times exactly two weeks prior but was not covered here on this blog.

However, I must tackle this "response" which is riddled with problems and avoids addressing the facts in Kagan's letter head-on. I will put Su's response in blockquoted black text, and my comments will appear in full width. To distinguish the single quote from Kagan's letter which appears here, it will appear in green blockquoted text.

After a brief introduction, these are Su's second and third paragraphs:

Professor Kagan expresses doubts about why a democratic country such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) would seek to develop closer relations with mainland China, which is not a democracy. As an historian, he surely must know that all members of the international community should and must develop relations with each other, regardless of differences in political systems or even bilateral disagreements over specific issues. The US engages in trade and security cooperation with non-democratic countries throughout the world, yet few question how this might affect US democracy.

Similarly, the Republic of China needs to develop relations with all members of the international community to ensure the best interests of the people of Taiwan. It is an internationally accepted fact that mainland China is growing in economic and strategic importance. When the international community wishes to solve major international problems, it increasingly finds that it must engage with Beijing to help find a solution. The US is working more closely than ever with the mainland to deal with managing the global financial crisis, handling the North Korean situation and countering global terrorism. As an integral member of the international community, Taiwan needs to engage with mainland China for many of the same reasons, regardless of any cross-strait differences.

Su is comparing apples and oranges by writing as if other people don't realize that China wants to annex Taiwan while the vast majority of Taiwanese people don't want to be part of that authoritarian foreign regime and that those in Beijing hold great leverage over those in Taipei. The phrase "cross-strait differences" doesn't give you any idea that these differences entail the governments of two nations claiming to rule the entirety of each others territory -- dangerous claims which have hung over the lives of people in both countries (but mostly those in Taiwan) for over six decades.

Note how Su says "a democratic country such as the Republic of China (Taiwan)" above, yet in nearly every other case he treats Taiwan as a mere region. How can anyone take him at his word?

Here's Su's next paragraph:

However, this is absolutely not in any way at the expense of Taiwan's hard-won democracy. This administration has consistently stressed since taking office that all its policies and interaction with Beijing shall be based on the principle of "putting Taiwan first for the benefit of the people." If improving ties had led to the appalling result Dr Kagan posits of Beijing controlling the dialogue and always getting what it wants, why was no double taxation avoidance agreement signed during the Chiang-Chen [Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林)] cross-strait talks in December, despite being on the agenda? The answer is simple: Disputed details in the wording of the agreement did not accord with the aforementioned principle, so we were not going to sign it, and did not.

He ignores what -- despite promises from Beijing -- has happened to Hong Kong in the past 12 and a half years and talks about the "double taxation" issue as if China won't still benefit by collecting those taxes from Taiwanese businesses. Beijing loses nothing on that point, but Su has weakened the foundation of his own argument.

Su also completely omits the fact that the talks regarding an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) -- which Chinese officials say "will certainly bring about complete unification of the motherland [sic] -- have been anything but transparent and have not been subject to legislative oversight. Su skirts around this just below with the phrase "involving domestic laws." Read carefully:

The fact that these talks took place between the respectively authorized representative organizations of both sides — the SEF and ARATS — debunks the myth that the cross-strait dialogue is being conducted party-to-party, rather than government-to-government. The Legislative Yuan must approve any accord worked out with ARATS involving domestic laws. Only this administration, duly elected by the voters in Taiwan — and not any political party at either end of the political spectrum — sets cross-strait policy and speaks on behalf of the people of Taiwan.

Minister Su acts as if no one heard that Taiwan's Straits [sic] Exchange Foundation (海峽交流基金會) chairman and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice-chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) recently referred to himself as nothing but a "rubber stamp" in these so-called negotiations.

There's also the strange issue of why the Ma administration won't allow a referendum on the issue, even though the number of signatures collected to initiate the process was nearly double the required threshold. That's not "speak[ing] on behalf of the people of Taiwan," Mr. Su.

While Su dished out some "tough" talk about how much control this government could exert just two blockquotes above, he does a 180 below and says that his government has no control over anything:

Professor Kagan's letter also dwelled on the disingenuous complaint that using "Chinese Taipei" as the name of our country in international events and organizations signals a deliberate diminution of national sovereignty. Taiwan's participation in such events under the rubric "Chinese Taipei" during previous administrations did not diminish national sovereignty, nor can it do so now. This government has always sought and continues to vigorously seek the use of our official name, "Republic of China," or at least "Taiwan," in such situations. However, given Taiwan's unique international status, use of our national title is beyond our control. We warmly welcome support from Dr Kagan and his colleagues for the correct use of our national title by international events and organizations hereafter.

It actually is entirely under your control whether you choose to participate using such names and whether you do so gladly (as in the World Health Organization [WHO] fiasco which did damage to Taiwan's sovereignty) or under protest, as the DPP would have done.

Su's jeremiad continues:

The mantra that democracy in Taiwan is less robust than before utterly conflicts with reality. Domestic political debate in Taiwan is as spirited and vigorous as ever. The local media scrutinize every action of this administration closely, and public demonstrations on political issues of every kind are commonplace. Any concerns that Taiwan is reverting to one-party rule were surely dispelled by the results of local elections held last month. KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] candidates for mayor and county magistrate posts received 47.88 percent of the nationwide vote, while DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] candidates garnered 45.32 percent. There is no clearer proof that the people of Taiwan have the absolute power to choose their government.

Here, Su ignores the Chinese KMT's continued drive to take over Taiwan's Public TV (PTS, 公共電視). Furthermore, he confuses gains in city, county, and township elections with having both a balanced legislature and a president who listens to majority opinion without oppressing minorities or stupidly telling aboriginals out loud that "I see you as humans," as Ma did before being elected to office.

Su ends his letter like this:

The people of Taiwan have every reason to be proud of the democracy and freedom they have achieved. Taiwan continues to shape the debate on whether democracy is attainable in the Chinese-speaking world, even as cross-strait ties improve. We remain resolutely confident that the undeniable fact of democratic attainment in Taiwan will ultimately prove just as, or even more, powerful to spur positive developments on the opposite side of the Taiwan Strait. That can only be to the benefit of the people of Taiwan and those of the mainland, as well as the world in general.

Look at the language he uses: "Chinese-speaking world" is a culturally-imperialist phrase which ignores Taiwan's many other languages; "cross-strait" is an adjective which hides the fact that two separate countries are being discussed; and Su's repeated use of the word "mainland" (when he means "China") also reveals how he see's Taiwan's status as a lesser entity. (I'm sure discerning readers can find even more to criticize in the above paragraph.)

The minister also must think that you, the reader, have forgotten that while former President Chen has been in jail for over a year now, the Ma administration's "Ministry of Just Us" apparently still hasn't collected enough real evidence to convincingly convict him of the life sentence which has already been handed down and is instead using judicial pressure to try to get those close to Chen -- even his former housekeeper -- to squeal.

All of these things are clear signs of the continued erosion of justice, freedom of the press, and democracy, even if -- in Mr. Su's mind -- it's all sweetness and light.

Full Political Alchemist
Oh, and by the way, Su didn't dare address this important bit from Professor Kagan's letter which demonstrates the GIO minister's lack of logical skills:

Su claims that Taiwan's ranking in the report on 180 countries issued by Transparency International rose to No. 37. This statement reveals political alchemy at its best. For instance, Taiwan's score in 2007 was 34. Numerically it did rise to 37. But the higher a country gets, the greater the index of corruption. Somalia is rated at No. 180. In fact, Taiwan fell into greater corruption by three points.

Can you say "fail"?

The prequels
Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter -- as an online petition -- has been signed by more than 2,000 people.

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:

According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]

* May 22, 2009: An estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts.

* November 9, 2009: Then there were 31. The Taiwan News publishes an "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars" which reminds us that "a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but [...] that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy" and that "Taiwan should be more fully accepted by the international community as a full and equal partner." (Here's a version with 31 names on the web site of one of the signatories, Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D.)

* December 13, 2009: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) submits the "GIO response to Nov. [9] open letter" to the Taipei Times.

* December 25, 2009: Richard Kagan, professor emeritus at Hamline University in St Paul, Minnesota and one of the signatories of the November 2009 letter, replies to Su Jun-pin's silliness in "GIO's response misses the point"

Don't expect this to end anytime soon.

In the meantime, never let your guard down. Stay angry, and fight this injustice every chance you get -- whether it's writing a blog, attending protests, reminding your mother-in-law that not "all politicians are alike" (especially when it comes to Taiwan's two biggest parties), pointing out to your doctors that the lie-filled pro-Ma TV stations blaring in the waiting room aren't good for their patients' physical or mental health, or even just by actively using the name "China" instead of "mainland" out of mere habit when referring to our bellicose neighbor.

And if you're registered to vote in today's elections in Taichung, Taoyuan, or Taitung -- the first two of which are being held as the result of Chinese KMT vote-buying convictions -- get out and vote for the DPP candidate in your area.

Good people must prevail against injustice.

---

Dockets for deliberation: Taiwan, 台灣, open letter, 公開信, Su Jun-pin, 蘇俊賓, Richard Kagan, 柯義耕, justice, 正義, Ministry of Justice, 法務部

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

The injustice of the verdict against Chen Shui-bian

It's no surprise Ma Ying-jeou never passed the bar exam

On September 11th, 2009, Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. This development will certainly divert people's attention from the poor performance of current president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) during the Typhoon Morakot rescue effort -- a performance which brought his approval rating down to a record low of 16 percent.

But Chen's case stinks not only because Taiwan does not have a set of healthy tax regulations but also because the testimony of criminal suspect Jeffrey Koo, Jr. (辜仲諒) was used to convict Chen in exchange for dropping charges against Koo.

The fact that Ma was able to ignore the overwhelming stench of this case while his Harvard Law School mentor felt sad about it leads me to conclude that it's not surprising to learn that Ma never passed the bar exam!

Ma's former mentor Jerome Cohen is certainly not proud of his former student. This is how Cohen reacted instead:

"It is a very sad day, it is also a very important day."

And how could Cohen not be sad? He had earlier given Ma a hint about Chen's human rights, but Ma didn't pay any attention.

Now the kangaroo court is going to lay more charges on Chen, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated Legislative Yuan is proposing yet another unfair law "decriminalizing" the use of the fund by government chiefs. This change will victimize only Chen while letting suspects in many previous corruption cases go free and will make things easier for future government officials to misuse their special allowances. If the new amendment is passed, pending corruption cases against KMT party members will be conveniently dismissed.

Because it could not stand the test of fair trial (presumed innocent until proven guilty), it is unlikely that the 1,415 pages of the judgment against Chen will ever be translated into English out of the fear that the content would be challenged by law experts around the world.

However, an English version of Chen's defense is available on a non-profit educational organization's site. and links are provided under "References" below.

I hope my analysis below will provide guidance to the people of Taiwan who may know very little about how political donations are dealt with elsewhere in the world and were blindly influenced by the pan-blue media in Taiwan into believing that Chen Shui-bian is guilty as charged. After all, a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty, and Chen should be treated with no exception.

Chen's unspent donations left over from previous election campaigns
First, I would like to introduce some forms which are readily available from the Internet, and which are common knowledge to tax practitioner in North America: "information returns" and "trust returns" like the ones below.

First is this:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO A REGISTERED PARTY OR TO A REGISTERED ASSOCIATION INFORMATION RETURN [PDF file]

This is the information return (T2092) which is filed annually by a registered party or a registered association to show the total contributions received, and all the slips detailing each contributor's amount of contribution and his name and address must be kept for 2 years for possible selective inspection by a government auditor.

But this type of information return does not exist in Taiwan because the KMT does not want to disclose their secret financial dealings and its total donations received.

There's also this:

IC75-2R7 Contributions to a Registered Party, a Registered Association or to a Candidate at a Federal Election

The information provided at the link above gives clear guidance to the subject discussed. Pay special attention to points 25, 26, 27, 28 (maximum deduction of $650 from tax payable so no one will benefit from a huge donation and consequently avoiding bribery), and 32 (no carry over of unused deductions to the following tax year).

In the US tax system
In the US, a political party can file an Income Tax Return for Certain Political Organizations [PDF file] (Form 1120-POL), and the rules are clear about what's exempt and what's not (investment income derived from political contributions are not exempt) see here.

There is other related tax info to be found here: "Trust income tax returns" like this form in Canada or like this one in the US.

But in Taiwan, the KMT does not want to pay taxes to the government on its investment income or business income or capital gains on sales of properties, nor do they want to return the assets to their rightful owners -- the people of Taiwan and to the now-defunct UNRRA -- so none of the aforementioned tax forms exist in Taiwan.

In other words, the KMT is like a criminal organization running some business enterprises while avoiding taxes along the way. And the transactions between the party and some key members of the party cannot be verified to be dealing at arm's length whereas the transactions between the party and the state were known to be indistinguishable during its terms in power.

In this respect, I find that the regulations in Taiwan needed serious overhaul.

In Chen's case, since no such filing requirements exist for political parties in Taiwan, it follows that the DPP wouldn't be able to file any returns similar to the ones mentioned above, nor would Chen be able to locate every last one of his supporters who donated to his election campaign and return the money to them (Which donors would get how much money back?) and ask them to donate again in future to other DPP candidates. So what could be done with the money left from Chen's election donations?

Chen couldn't report it under his personal income tax return -- nor should he have. Because the fund is for the purposes of his election or for other DPP functions, he knew that whenever there was a DPP event or whenever DPP candidates needed money for elections, he would be able to draw from these funds. In the meantime, moving the leftover donations abroad for investment was wise, and there was nothing wrong with that, otherwise he would have been subject to personal income taxes on this fund. That would have been an incorrect classification because this fund was not for his personal enjoyment. Moving money abroad did not constitute money laundering unless the prosecutors could establish that the money was obtained not from the donation leftovers but from a criminal act, e.g., money which belonged to the country.

There might have been disagreements between Chen and his wife as to how the money in this fund would be used, and perhaps his wife would have even liked to keep some (if not all) for their own family. While that would amount to selfishness, it wouldn't be a crime.

Additionally, people may have donated to Chen while not donating to other DPP candidates simply because people admired Chen so much for being a good Taiwanese role model who grew from a poor boy who almost had to drop out of school in order to work to help feed his family into a Taipei mayor with good record and, eventually, a national leader seeking reelection.

So, with the lack of Taiwan's tax regulations regarding political parties' information returns and/or tax returns, Chen couldn't be guilty on account of how the leftover donations were handled. While the KMT had all kinds of investment income and capital gains, they had never paid a cent of tax to the country -- this is tax avoidance.

The State Affairs Fund
This excerpt from "Former President Chen Shui-bian's Plea of Not Guilty Outside the Court (2)" provides some details:

The state affairs fund is similar in nature to the special allowances fund provided for administrative heads of government. The regulations governing both are loose and resemble guidelines more than strict laws. The application and reimbursement procedures of the state affairs fund have always been conducted in accordance with established practices. No one, from former President Chen and his aides to accountants in the Accounting Department of the Office of the President, has had any intention to commit crimes or corruption or to take money for their own pockets. They simply had inherited imperfect application and reimbursement procedures, which were the established practice left by the previous governments. This imperfect procedure can and should be reformed, but no one should be selectively charged with corruption simply because he or she had followed the previous governments' practice.

President Chen had, on his own initiative, cut his monthly salary by half, which means that his annual income was reduced by NT$5 million per year resulting in an NT$40 million reduction of his salary over his eight-year presidency. He had also, on his own discretion, terminated the Fongtian project and the Dangyang project, two secret National Security Bureau funds totaling NT$3.6 billion that used to be called "the President's private money." Moreover, he had donated all of his presidential election subsidies of more than NT$340 million. How then could such a president have any motive for embezzling a paltry NT$104 million from the state affairs fund? Further, in that fund, Chen has listed all fund expenses to prove that the total amount of expenditures from that fund had far exceeded the original amount allotted to it. For that reason, the accusation in the bill of indictment that "[Chen] had raised funds from other sources to pay for the expenses he listed, but he still put the state affairs fund into his private pocket" is more than absurd!

In addition to the above points, the unreliable testimony by Jeffrey Koo, Jr. -- who was cleared of any criminal charges by implicating Chen as being involved in a land deal -- also played a crucial role. However, throughout the indictment, the prosecutors assumed that Chen directed his wife (who didn't hold any public post) to act on behalf of him (who held a public post). We should all know that a person without an official post couldn't commit the crime of corruption; therefore, in order to convict Chen, the court had to assume -- without proof -- that Chen was the mastermind and that he directed his wife to commit the act of corruption.

It is widely believed that while Chen was so occupied with national affairs that he actually let his wife handle the family's financial affairs. If there's anything for Chen to regret, it would have been that he should have paid much more attention to what his wife was doing instead of being such a damn good Taiwanese nationalist leader, for it angered both China and the United States, causing him to be labeled as a troublemaker.

Chen's priority was always how to make Taiwan a normal nation, as he describes here in Block C of this interview on CNN's TalkAsia:


6:10 YouTube video: "Chen Shui-bian TalkAsia interview (01-2007) Part 3/3"
Chen Shui-bian TalkAsia Transcript

POSTED: 9:34 a.m. EST, February 2, 2007

[...]

[Q. by Anjali Rao:] President you're now in the last term of your presidency what are your priorities now?

A: As the leader of this nation, I want to make Taiwan into a normal country. Even though Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country, it is not yet a normal and complete country. Why do I say that Taiwan is not yet a normal country? Because if it were, it would be a member of the UN family and also be the member of the World Health Organization. Why do I say that Taiwan is not yet a complete country? Because our current Constitution has never been approved by our people. The 23 million people of Taiwan really need a new Taiwan constitution that is timely, relevant, and viable.

I want to put the emphasis on striking a good balance between prosperity and social justice and equity. Therefore, our main policy goals include increasing investment in Taiwan, continuing to create more job opportunities, bridging the gap between urban and rural areas, as well as decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. These are our major policy goals.

Holding Chen incommunicado without being charged, conducting a "trial by press" by leaking detrimental information to the media, and videotaping Chen's meetings with his lawyers (a practice which was declared unconstitutional by the Council of Grand Justices) had all violated Chen's right to build an effective defense. Topping it off was the unconstitutional switch of the presiding judge to Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) to take over Chen's case all pointed to the weakness of a fair trial.

The opinion from Chen's original lawyer about the unconstitutional change of the presiding judge to Tsai stated that the case should have been reverted back to the judge who was handling the case from the beginning, i.e. judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) [Taiwan Matters translation]:

陳水扁原辯護律師鄭文龍表示，扁案從周占春合議庭被換到蔡守訓合議庭，違反法定法官原則，他認為全案違憲而且無效。

Chen Shui-bian's original lawyer Cheng Wen-lung said that since Chou Chan-chun was replaced with Tsai Shou-hsun by the procedural committee, this violates judicial principles, and he believed that this rendered the entire case unconstitutional and invalid.

陳水扁原辯護律師鄭文龍：「我們很有信心大法官應該會宣告這個案子違憲，既然是違憲的判決，當然是無效的判決，二審法院最好的方式是直接廢棄發回，再由一審重新審理，應該由當初的承審法官，周占春法官繼續審理這個案子，因為這個案子的序屬，我們認為還在周占春法官手上」

Cheng said, "We are confident that the Council of Grand Justices will declare this case unconstitutional. Since this is an unconstitutional ruling, it surely is an invalid ruling. The best way to deal with this in an appeals court (AKA "court of second instance") would be to dismiss and return the case to the first court proceeding ("court of first instance") for the original judge, Chou Chan-chun. Because of the order in which this trial has proceeded, we believe that the case is still under judge Chou's jurisdiction."

Here's what Ma's Harvard mentor, Jerome Cohen, had to say about the changing of judges:

Asked whether it was appropriate for the judge to have been changed half-way through Chen's trial, Cohen said it would have been reasonable if judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) had taken up and presided over the Taipei District Court's collegiate panel right from the start.

Because the judges were changed after the case had started, it was natural that there was public doubt over the matter, he said.

The chaos resulting from the recent erosion of justice in Taiwan reveals two key personnel who -- like cancer cells -- should have been removed immediately from the government's posts. A brief background check for them revealed some interesting details.

The first of these is Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), who was the chairperson of the unconstitutional, pan-blue-dominated "319 Truth Commission" (319 槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會) (MORE: 1, 2, 3), a committee that tried to overturn Chen's 2004 presidential election victory by claiming that Chen staged the March 19, 2004 assassination attempt on himself in order to win sympathy votes.

Jerome Cohen's "Lesson in Integrity for All" contains a hidden message for Wang:

The case [which voided the criminal corruption conviction of former US senator Ted Stevens-R] also illustrates the importance of having a justice department chief courageous enough to repudiate his staff's misconduct, replace the offending prosecutors, initiate an investigation and drop the charges.

The second one is judge Tsai Shou-hsun, who just happens to be the judge who acquitted Ma Ying-Jeou for his involvement in his special allowance corruption case and jailed Ma's secretary, Yu Wen, instead.

Cohen's "Lesson in Integrity for All" also contains another hidden message for Tsai:

Several times during the trial, Judge Emmet Sullivan, prompted by dynamic defence counsel, reprimanded prosecutors for withholding evidence, and sought to remedy any damage to the defence.

Chen's case has caused outrage among the people in the English blogosphere. One example can be read here:

If you look at the evidence, it's actually fairly weak. One of the charges was to do with a land transaction for a science park. I don't believe testimony actually showed Chen's connection to it, just that of his wife. But, with almost all the charges, the prosecutor said "how could Chen not know". I'm not sure how why husbands are responsible for the crimes of their wives.

What Chen was guilty of was taking advantage of a big hole in Taiwanese law that allows politicians to deal with surplus campaign funds as they see fit. There were proposals to close this during Chen's presidencies, but the KMT-controlled legislature strangely cut them all down. So I'm not sure how that's a crime either, least of all money-laundering. To launder money it has to be obtained illegally, from criminal proceeds, etc. If the law doesn't say Chen wasn't entitled to keep it, moving it around can't possibly be money-laundering.

Here's another example by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.: "The Real Source of Taiwan's Campaign Corruption," Tuesday September 15, 2009.

People say that Ma is keeping Chen in prison because Ma cannot continue to deceive the people of Taiwan without Chen being around to divert attention; in case you haven't noticed, the Mandarin word for "cheat" or "deceive" is piàn​ (騙), which is formed by combining two characters. Ironically, the left half is Ma's surname, which means "horse" (馬), and the right half is the latter half of the former president's given name: Bian (扁). Ma wishes to keep A-bian behind bars so A-bian's case can help Ma to continue deceiving the nation by drawing away attention from his poor performance.

Taiwanese people who divide themselves among pro-Chen or anti-Chen camps should view the whole situation from a broader scope. Since the Ma administration came into power in 2008, justice and rule of law in Taiwan are swiftly being eroded. Something has to be done quickly to stop this.

The KMT is not just a simple political party -- it is a criminal organization engaged in tax avoidance economic activities, and has never paid a cent of tax to the country on its investment and other business or capital gains income. They have illegally sold properties and assets misappropriated from the Taiwanese people and of international aid to private owners.

If the heavy fines imposed on the accused in Chen's case are paid, they will eventually wind up in the combined KMT government's coffers to assist the party in its subsequent criminal activities, e.g. tax avoidance economic activities and vote-buying schemes, resulting in a vicious cycle.

As Chen Shui-bian pointed out in the TalkAsia interview, the people of Taiwan have never approved the ROC constitution which has been used to govern Formosa since the arrival of the KMT per General Order no. 1. They never had a chance to conduct a fair election independent from the ROC constitution and were consequently deprived of the chance to have a normal functional legislative body to pass fair laws.

Taiwanese abroad should hold a demonstration in front of the UN, and the people of Taiwan should protest in front of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to demand the confiscation of all the assets of the KMT criminal organization and evict that party from Taiwan. It is a Chinese party which should not participate in Taiwanese elections. Since there is no longer any hostility between the two Chinese parties (the KMT, and the CCP), the KMT's ROC government should terminate its exile status and return to its origins -- namely, any territory in China -- and let the de facto independent Taiwan become a normal nation.

References:
The English version of Chen's defense, in five parts:
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ketagalan/12878262
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ketagalan/12878271
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ketagalan/12878272
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ketagalan/12878274
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ketagalan/12878276

Earlier on my personal blog:
* Tracking Taiwan's evaporating national assets - Ma is a suspected criminal on the loose

Previously on this blog:
* Tuesday, December 16, 2008, Taiwan Echo and Tim Maddog: "Seeing Chen Shui-bian's so-called "money laundering" case from another angle"

* Tuesday, August 14, 2007, Tim Maddog: "Ma Ying-jeou acquittal documentation online"

* Saturday, November 18, 2006, Tim Maddog: "The differences between the cases of Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian"

The erosion of justice in Taiwan:
This has been a long-running series. Here, in chronological order, is a list of some recent letters on the subject and news about related events:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter as an online petition has been signed by more than 2,000 people.

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:

According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]

* May 22, 2009: An estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts.

* September 11, 2009: Chen Shui-bian gets life

* September 12, 2009: "Jerome Cohen, Ma's Law School Mentor, Again Speaks Out on the Ma Government Violation of Human Rights," by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

(Tim Maddog contributed to this post.)

Statement of support for Lee Ming-tsung

Prof. Lee Ming-tsung
image (cc) 楊竣傑
via 生命力新聞

Statement
We, the bloggers of Taiwan Matters, stand in solidarity with National Taiwan University Professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁) following his indictment last month on charges of violating the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).

Professor Lee participated in a protest in November 2008 with a group of students which later came to be known as the "Wild StrawBerries Movement." They had three specific demands [edited here for formatting, clarity, spelling, and completeness]:

1. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) must publicly apologize to all citizens [for creating the situation which allowed the police to treat protesters the way they did during Chen Yunlin's (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan].

2. National Police Agency (NPA) Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) must step down [to take responsibility for the police brutality that occurred as a result of the massive police presence].

3. The Legislative Yuan (行政院) must revise the Parade and Assembly Law (集會遊行法), which currently restricts the rights of the people [and which are set to become even more repressive early in 2009]. [This is basically a simple demand for "Freedom of Assembly."]

If there had been sufficient reason to charge Professor Lee, it could have been done at the time of the protest instead of seven months later.

In the interim, political persecution, threats, and violence have with increasing frequency been carried out against those who are active in their opposition to the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration's policies of moving politically closer to China and reversing the progress made during Taiwan's transition to sovereign democracy over the past twenty years.

The current administration has severely undermined the integrity of Taiwan's judicial system with its continued detention of former President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) while justice officials perform skits mocking the defendant. Despite President Ma's promises that he would reform the Assembly and Parade Act, all indications are that it will become a stricter law than it was previously.

In fact, more laws infringing on free speech are being passed. One example is the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法):

The Act prohibits academics from wearing or displaying flags or emblems of any political parties or groups at teachers' or researchers' offices. It also prohibits academics from convening demonstrations, launching signature bids and the editing, printing or distribution of political flyers or related documents using public equipment at public offices. The Examination Yuan and the Executive Yuan are also authorized to impose more bans through administrative orders.

The indictment of Professor Lee is yet another example to add to the ever-growing list of partisan indictments which strongly suggest systemized political persecution. There is no political capital to be gained by such actions, except perhaps in Beijing.

What we need in Taiwan is justice, not the "just us" mentality that is currently being demonstrated by the Ma administration.

To summarize, we stand behind Professor Lee Ming-tsung in his rational, nonviolent attempts to defend and deepen Taiwan's democracy. As long as the current government's policies continue to carry us backward toward an authoritarian past, the protests are likely to grow.

Signed,
The Taiwan Matters blog team

Participate
Others who wish to "sign" this statement can do so in the comments section below or let us know by e-mail (address is in the sidebar).

FURTHER READING/VIEWING:
Learn more about the controversial practices of the current judicial system.

* The Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights (捍衛民主人權陣線) harshly criticizes the Ma administration and shows strong support for Professor Lee as well as for National Taiwan Normal University (國立台灣師範大學) Professor Lin Chia-fan (林佳範) in the wake of his indictment on charges similar to those being pressed against Professor Lee.

* The Monday, July 13, 2009 edition of the Taipei Times has an editorial piece by Chiu Hei-yuan (瞿海源) called "The Act that silences academics."

* The Tuesday, July 14, 2009 Taipei Times reports that "More than 120 academics and human rights activists said yesterday they would turn themselves in to prosecutors for breaking the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) in a protest against the legislation." Read all about it in an article titled "Activists, academics 'surrender' to protest law."

* The full text of the new Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法) can be read in English on Brock Freeman's blog.

* Read David Reid's recent post on how the Assembly Law attacks freedom of speech.

* Taiwan Echo blogs in English and Hanzi on the illegal reasoning behind the latest extension of the detention of Chen Shui-bian: Lawless Taipei District Court extends Chen's detention based on illegal taping; 目無法紀的蔡守訓與台北地院用違法盜錄的看守所對話延長對扁的羈押

* Read a March 2009 statement from Chen Shui-bian (translated into English) which mentions interference by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰).

* Watch Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng in August 2008 publicly discussing details of the ongoing investigation into the case against Chen Shui-bian as covered by New Taiwan Forum (新台灣論壇), FTV (民視新聞台), and Talking Show (大話新聞).

* Read Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng's denial of what you see happening in the three video clips above.

(Written by all current team members, posted by Tim Maddog.)

---

Tags: Taiwan, 台灣, Lee Ming-tsung, 李明璁, Assembly and Parade Act, 集會遊行法, Ministry of Justice, 法務部, Wang Ching-feng, 王清峰, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Chen's 119 letter to Ma

President Chen Shui-bian, under investigation along with most of the former first family for corruption and money laundering, has sent a letter to President Ma Ying-jeou asking him to lift the travel ban on his daughter Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤). Taipei Times reports:

The move came after Chen Hsing-yu broke down in front of her father while visiting the former president last week....

The former president wrote: “If Chen Hsing-yu cannot go to the US, she might not be emotionally capable of dealing [with the situation],” [Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯)] said.

He added that Chen Shui-bian was worried his daughter might develop a mental disorder or try to commit suicide because of the travel restrictions.

When Chen Hsing-yu visited her father in the detention center on Friday, she reportedly cried to her father about not being able to go to the US as planned.

The former president asked Tsai to go to the Ministry of Justice to plead with Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) to let Chen Hsing-yu go to the US on July 1 to register for school, as she has plans of leaving with her children to study and work in the US.

While I don't want to question former president Chen's motives, it seems to me this letter is grandstanding. It was the prosecutors who placed the ban on Chen Hsing-yu's travel when they charged her with perjury in relation to this case. I would suggest that any reversal of that decision by the Ministry of Justice, especially under pressure from President Ma, would be exactly the sort of overt political interference in the judicial system which the DPP has condemned repeatedly as being part of the problem in not only Chen's prosecution, but also in cases like Ma's cointinued appeals in his case against Hou:

Hou [Kuan-jen (侯寬仁)] was one of the prosecutors probing Ma’s handling of his special allowance funds when Ma was Taipei mayor, minister of justice, vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council and other posts.

Ma accused Hou of inaccurately documenting his questioning of Wu Li-ju (吳麗洳), a Taipei City Government treasurer, about how Ma used his special mayoral fund.

There is ample cause to believe that the prosecutors in Chen's case are acting both inappropriately and vengefully. Still, I have to wonder just what is on Chen's mind, beyond possibly panicked concern for his daughter and maybe hopes of gaining political points against Ma.

Non-lawyer Ma Ying-jeou misrepresents reality yet again

I can hear it in his voice, and it shows in his eyes

Here are the key points from an article in today's Taipei Times:

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) said yesterday that a pharmaceutical company linked to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had been fined for failing to avoid a conflict of interest when selling drugs to Taipei City Municipal Hospital.

Ma Yi-nan (馬以南) [one of Ma's four sisters] was deputy manager of China Chemical & Pharmaceutical Co (中化, CCPC) at the time of the sale, while her brother Ma Ying-jeou was Taipei mayor.

[...]

Citing the Public Officials' Conflicts of Interests Prevention Act (公職人員利益衝突迴避法), Kuan [Kao-yueh (管高岳), director of the Department of Government Employee Ethics] said the city government should not have had any business deals with Ma Yi-nan's company.

The act stipulates that companies found to be in violation be fined one to three times the purchase amount.

The accusation first surfaced last February during the presidential campaign when then-Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) team accused Ma Ying-jeou of lying about his role in his sister's business relations with Taipei City Municipal Hospital.

Hsieh's campaign team said Ma Yi-nan had been granted sole distribution rights for drugs sold to the hospital.

At the time, Ma Ying-jeou denied the allegation, saying his sister was not involved in selling medicine to the hospital.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that the president respects the ministry's decision.

... which means, once again, that Ma wasn't telling the truth.

Surprised? I guess you'd expect the scorpion not to sting the frog or something?

No "Just Us," No Peace!
In case you think the Ministry of Justice is now handling "blue" cases, note that Ma and his sister remain untouched by the judiciary here and that the pan-blue media will do their part to whitewash any of the dirt from this which may rub off on Ma. Don't be fooled.

Related video
I wonder if the unconstitutional NCC (National Communications Commission) will be upset at TVBS (AKA BS-TV) about this report:


1:17 YouTube video: "未利益迴避藥廠重罰,大門神馬以南沒事??馬是美國公民抓不到??"
Translation: "Because of conflict of interest, pharmaceutical company gets severe penalty,
nothing happens to 'protector' [literally, 'door deity'] Ma Yi-nan??
As an American citizen, Ma [Yi-nan] can't be taken in??"

---

Evident circumstances: Taiwan, 台灣, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Ministry of Justice, 法務部

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!