As time moves forward, Ma's administration moves backward
A group of 39 observers of Taiwanese politics from around the world -- many of whom were part of an earlier series of open letters on the erosion of justice in Taiwan under the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) government -- is in the news yet again. This time, they're focusing on the indictment against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Here's some of the main content [highlights mine]:
Dear President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九),
We the undersigned, international academics, analysts and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, have for many years been keen observers of political developments in Taiwan. We were delighted when Taiwan made its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and we continue to care deeply for the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state.
However, during the past three years, many of us have felt it necessary to address publicly our concerns to you about the erosion of justice and democracy in Taiwan, most recently in April this year regarding the charges of the "36,000 missing documents" against a number of prominent former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials. We raised these issues as international supporters of Taiwan's democracy.
At this time we express our deep concern about the charges against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), often referred to as "the father of Taiwan's democracy," who was indicted on June 30 on charges of allegedly channeling US$7.8 million from secret diplomatic funds into the Taiwan Research Institute. These charges and their timing raise a number of questions that are related both to the case itself and the integrity of the judicial system in Taiwan.
After detailing the specific questions (which you can read at the link above) -- the first of which mentions that the charges stem from events which took place about 15 years ago -- the letter continues [highlights mine]:
Mr President, as head of state you bear overall responsibility for the state of affairs in Taiwan. In democratic systems, proper checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches are of the utmost importance. The executive and the legislative branches have a responsibility to exercise oversight and to balance activism in the judiciary, just as the judiciary serves a similar role with regard to the executive and legislative branches. Stating that your government abides by "judicial independence" is therefore not enough. It is essential that all participants in the judicial process — prosecutors, judges and lawyers — are fully imbued with the basic principle that the judiciary is scrupulously impartial and not given to any partisan preferences.
We, as members of the international academic community, are left with the impression that the indictments and practices of the judiciary in Taiwan over the past three years reflect a judicial system that is increasingly influenced by political considerations. There has been a regression in the accomplishments of Taiwan's momentous democratization of the 1990s and 2000s. As good friends of Taiwan, we are deeply unsettled by this. It undermines Taiwan's international image as a free and democratic nation.
Mr President, we therefore urge you and your government to ensure that the judicial system is held to the highest standards of objectivity and fairness. Taiwan has many challenges ahead of it and it cannot afford the political divisions created by the use of the judicial system for political purposes.
Respectfully yours, [the undersigned]
You can say that again (and they probably will)!
Some of the prequels Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:
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"
* January 8, 2010: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) churns out A GIO response to Richard Kagan (one of the signatories of the November 9, 2009 "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars") in which Su compares apples and oranges by imagining that other people don't know that China wants to annex Taiwan while the Taiwanese people don't want to be part of China, ignores what has happened to Hong Kong in the past 12 and a half years, talks about the "double-taxation" issue as if China won't still get those taxes from Taiwanese businesses, pretends to forget 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) referred to himself as a "rubber stamp," complains that his government has no control over anything, ignores the KMT's continued attempts to take over Taiwan's Public TV (PTS, 公共電視), confuses gains in local elections with a balanced legislature and a president who listens to majority opinion without oppressing minorities or stupidly saying out loud that he "sees them as humans," and 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. These things, Mr. Su, are clear signs of an erosion of both justice and democracy.
* April 11, 2011:Another open letter criticizes the government's charges that 17 former DPP officials are responsible for "'failing to return' about 36,000 documents during the DPP administration" which ended almost three years earlier.
Will Tiao, the producer of the film "Formosa Betrayed" (被出賣的台灣), which is being released across the United States today, sent this around [emphasis mine]:
Dear Friends,
This weekend, February 26-28, a new movie about Taiwan will be coming to theaters. Formosa Betrayed is the first American film to ever deal with US-Taiwan relations and explore the issues of democracy, identity, and justice during the White Terror period in Taiwan. The movie was largely funded by Taiwanese all over the United States and Canada, who invested over $6 million into the film. This makes Formosa Betrayed one of the largest pro-Taiwan projects ever funded by the overseas Taiwanese community. Most of these investors are not wealthy -- they are hard working individuals who came to America to provide a better life for their children.
I am one of those children.
My parents are from Kaohsiung, Taiwan. While growing up, they taught me to call myself "Taiwanese," not "Chinese." This caused them much hardship, which included being put on a blacklist. Some of their friends had worse things happen to them. In some cases, people were killed.
The Taiwanese people have suffered at the hands of many over the last century, but these stories have rarely been told or heard. As a second generation Taiwanese American, I feel it is my duty to educate my generation, as well as the world, about the struggles and suffering of the Taiwanese. We cannot allow Taiwan's history and its people's hardships to be forgotten. Once that happens, it only becomes a matter of time before these atrocities are repeated. This is precisely why I dedicated the last five years of my life to bringing the story of Formosa Betrayed to the world.
As the turbulent reaction to President Obama's recent arms sale to Taiwan shows, US-China-Taiwan relations is still a touchy subject that is greeted by fleeting interest, faint support, or --perhaps worst of all-- indifference by the American media. I am hoping the release of Formosa Betrayed will help spur greater awareness and wider discussion about these important matters in the United States and abroad. This is why I am urging you to see Formosa Betrayed this weekend with your friends and family -- to enlighten them about Taiwan's embattled legacy and its struggle for democracy.
Thank you for your time and interest.
All the best,
Will Tiao President, Formosa Films Producer, Formosa Betrayed
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Fifth open letter on the erosion of justice in Taiwan
The list of signatories grows by almost 20%
Writer Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D. and thirty other scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Asia, Europe and Australia have penned a fifth open letter about the serious problems occurring under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou.
The letter 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." Read the full letter at the link above, but here is a large excerpt [emphasis mine]:
During the past two decades, Taiwan has made major progress in each of these areas [freedom, democracy, justice and human rights]. It thus has been a disappointment for us to see an erosion of justice, a weakening of checks and balances in the democratic system and a decline in press freedom in Taiwan. These trends are reflected in the significantly downward ratings Taiwan received in the annual reports of international organizations such as Freedom House and Reporters without Borders.
They are also reflected in the expressions of concern by international scholars and friends of Taiwan related to the flaws in the judicial proceedings against former President Chen Shui-bian and the apparent lack of neutrality in the continuing "investigations" and indictments of other prominent members of the DPP government. We thus appeal to you again to ensure that measures are taken to ensure the impartiality and fairness of the judiciary.
Good governance, accountability and transparency based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, justice and human rights are all the more essential now that your government is moving Taiwan on a path of closer economic ties with China. We believe that a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but emphasize that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy and the establishment of human rights in Taiwan itself.
Thus, the process of improving relations with the large neighbor across the Strait needs to be an open, deliberative and democratic process, in full consultation with both the Legislative Yuan and the democratic opposition, and fully transparent to the general public. We are thus pleased to hear that officials of your government have stated that any agreement with China would need to have both a domestic consensus, including approval by the Legislative Yuan, and acceptance by the international community. We trust this process will be open and consultative in ways that respect the democratic traditions begun so promisingly two decades ago.
The prequels Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
[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]:
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.
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."
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 JusticeWang 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Yet again, 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, and if Ma or his administration responds with more denials as they have done with the previous open letters, they will only be make things look even worse than they already are.
Without further hot air from me, here's number four in the series as it appeared in the Thursday, May 21, 2009 issue of the Taipei Times:
Open letter to Taiwan's president
Dear President Ma,
On the occasion of the first anniversary of your presidency, we, the undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, wish to publicly address our concerns to you about a number of trends in Taiwan, as well as several specific developments.
We raise these issues as international supporters of Taiwan's democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state. As you recall, we voiced concerns on three previous occasions, most recently in a letter to you, Mr President, dated Jan. 17, 2009, in which we expressed our concern regarding the fairness of the judicial system in Taiwan.
These concerns have not been alleviated by either the response from Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) or the cessation of troubling, flawed and partial judicial proceedings, in particular involving the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
We reiterate that any alleged corruption must be investigated, but emphasize that the judicial process needs to be scrupulously fair and impartial. In the case of the former president, it is evident that the prosecution is heavily tainted by political bias, and that the former president is being treated badly out of spite for the political views and the positions he took during his presidency. Such retribution does not bode well for a young and fragile democracy, as Taiwan is.
The second issue that we feel we need to highlight is press freedom. In spite of earlier expressions of concern by international organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom House, there continue to be reports of impingement on press freedom by your administration. A case in point is the recent disturbing report that Central News Agency staff were instructed to write only "positive" stories about the policies of your administration, and that reports containing criticism of your administration or China were excised.
As supporters of a free and democratic Taiwan it is disheartening to see that in the annual report on press freedom by the New York-based Freedom House, Taiwan dropped from 32nd to 43rd place. In addition, it is disconcerting to see reports that groups with close ties to China are buying their way into Taiwan's media circles, gaining a controlling voice in major publications such as the China Times. We need to remind ourselves that China is still an authoritarian state with a long history of control of the news media. Its financial influence in Taiwan's free press will in the long run be detrimental to hard-won freedoms.
This leads us to a third general issue: the means by which rapprochement with China is being pursued. While most people in Taiwan and overseas agree that a reduction of tension in the Taiwan Strait is beneficial, it is crucial to do this in a manner befitting a democratic nation: with openness and full public debate. Only if there is sufficient transparency and true dialogue — both in the Legislative Yuan and in society as a whole — will the result be supported by a significant majority of the people.
Transparency and true dialogue have been lacking in the process. Decisions and agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public. The Legislative Yuan seems to have been sidelined, having little input in the form or content of the agreements, such as the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). The administration simply sends to the legislature the texts agreed to in the negotiations with the People's Republic of China, allowing virtually no possibility of discussion of the pros and cons of such agreements. This undermines the system of checks and balances, which is so essential to a mature democracy. We may mention that recent opinion polls show overwhelming support for a referendum on an ECFA and for better legislative oversight of China policy.
Mr President, as international scholars and writers who have followed Taiwan's impressive transition to democracy during the past two decades, we know the sensitivity in Taiwan of the issue of relations with China. Rapprochement needs to be carried out in a way that ensures that the achievements of the democratic movement are safeguarded, that the political divide within Taiwan is reduced and that Taiwan's sovereignty, human rights and democracy are protected and strengthened.
However, during the past year we have seen that the policies of your administration are being implemented in a way that is causing deep anxiety, particularly among many who fought for Taiwan's democracy two decades ago. This was evident in the large-scale rallies held in Taipei and Kaohsiung on Sunday.
We have also seen a further polarization in society due to the lack of transparency and democratic checks and balances. Many observers believe that the rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of Taiwan's sovereignty, democracy and freedoms. To some, the judicial practices and police behavior toward those who criticize your policies are even reminiscent of the dark days of martial law.
In this respect, symbols are important. It does not help that your administration has renamed National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. It doesn't bolster your case that the funding for the Chingmei Human Rights Memorial in Sindian (新店) has been cut drastically and that the location is being turned into a "cultural" park. It doesn't help that changes are being made to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) that infringe on freedoms of protesters instead of enhancing freedom of speech.
Mr President, we appeal to you to take measures that alleviate these concerns. A first step would be to initiate and implement reforms in the judicial system that safeguard the human rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial. A second step would be to guarantee complete press freedom, and instill in those engaged in the media the determination to live up to the highest standards.
Thirdly, rapprochement with China needs to be brought about in such a way that the people of Taiwan have a full say in determining their future as a free and democratic nation. Closed-door deals that bring Taiwan increasingly into China's sphere of influence are detrimental to Taiwan's future and undermine the democratic fabric of society.
Due to its complex history, Taiwan has not had the opportunity to be accepted as a full and equal member of the international family of nations. We believe the people of Taiwan have worked hard for their democracy, and that the international community should accept Taiwan in its midst. Your actions and policies can help the island and its people move in the right direction. We urge you to do so.
Respectfully yours,
NAT BELLOCCHI Former chairman, American Institute in Taiwan
COEN BLAAUW Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
STÉPHANE CORCUFF Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon
GORDON G. CHANG Author, The Coming Collapse of China
JUNE TEUFEL DREYER Professor of Political Science, University of Miami
MICHAEL DANIELSEN Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
TERRI GILES Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
BRUCE JACOBS Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University
RICHARD C. KAGAN Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University
JEROME F. KEATING Author and associate professor (ret.), National Taipei University
DAVID KILGOUR Former Canadian member of parliament and secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific
LIU SHIH-CHUNG Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington
MICHAEL RAND HOARE Emeritus Reader at the University of London, Great Britain
VICTOR H. MAIR Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania
DONALD RODGERS Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College
TERENCE RUSSELL Associate Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
CHRISTIAN SCHAFFERER Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology; and Editor, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
MICHAEL STAINTON York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada
PETER CHOW Professor of Economics, City College of New York
PETER TAGUE Professor of Law,Georgetown University
JOHN J. TKACIK JR. Former senior research fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington
ARTHUR WALDRON Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond
GERRIT VAN DER WEES Editor, Taiwan Communiqué
MICHAEL YAHUDA Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics, and Visiting Scholar, George Washington University
STEPHEN YATES President, DC Asia Advisory, and former deputy assistant to the US vice president for national security affairs
I'm hoping this will be online as a petition soon, at which time I will tell you how you can add your name.
The prequels Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:
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 [...]
RSS Feed
