Letter to THE TAIPEI TIMES by Bruce Jacobs

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/09/04/2003452722

Taiwan’s legal system and Chen

By Bruce Jacobs 家博
Friday, Sep 04, 2009, Page 8

‘Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?’

Earlier this week I was one of the first foreigners to visit former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at the Taipei Detention Center in Tucheng (土城). The visit was severely restricted. We saw Chen through two very thick panes of glass separated by insulating air as well as substantial vertical steel bars. No sound could penetrate this barrier and we talked with Chen though phones that were old and had a scratchy sound quality. As we could easily see, guards monitored our conversation.

We could not take anything into the reception room, even a notebook or a pen, so we could not record what Chen said. On the other hand, prison officers were polite and efficient and did not hassle us in any way.

Every Monday to Friday, Chen is allowed one 30-minute visit with a maximum of two visitors. On the first Sunday of each month, he has an additional visit, though this too is limited to two people and 30 minutes and is also conducted by telephone through the thick bars and glass.

I should make clear at the outset that I have frequently and publicly criticized Chen’s presidency. In addition, my knowing Chen for many years is not unique because I have also known former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for some 15 years and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for about eight years.

Many foreign observers, including me, have raised serious questions about the justice system in Taiwan. Traditionally, crimes of embezzlement and corruption in Taiwan have not required detention prior to conviction.

For example, after Ma was indicted on corruption charges on Feb. 13, 2007, he remained free, despite the severity of the charges, until found not guilty on Aug. 14 that year. Similarly, no one else indicted on corruption charges remains in prison prior to conviction, except Chen.

Why is Chen the only person detained in prison on corruption charges before being convicted?

Many observers have noted that when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came into office in 2000, it retained many KMT office-holders. In contrast, when the KMT returned to power last year, it quickly got rid of DPP office-holders and filled positions from its own ranks.

Many observers believe that the current KMT administration genuinely hates Chen and they expect that the KMT will do its best to keep him in prison as long as possible.

The difficulty in a democracy is that the voters usually throw out the government and put in the opposition. A few years ago, who could have predicted that the high-riding Republicans in the US, who dominated all branches of government, would be so severely defeated last year?

Similarly, the high-riding KMT of last year is already facing many problems, including administrative incompetence, an incompetence highlighted by the devastation of Typhoon Morakot. Will a future DPP government pay back the KMT with pre-conviction detentions and possibly long jail terms?

Another problem facing democratizing Taiwan is that the areas of both justice and the media have been slow to reform. In the media, many newspapers and TV stations had their origins in the authoritarian period and they continue to push similar beliefs in democratic Taiwan.

The former justice system, too, had many inexperienced “baby” judges and prosecutors just out of law school who did well in examinations but who had no life experience. Many were trained to accept KMT guidance with respect to judicial cases. The apparent manipulation of the judges hearing Chen’s case raises many fears that past practices continue.

Fortunately, the story is not all gloomy. After protests from overseas, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) declared that the use of handcuffs on Chen was inappropriate and he now goes to and from the courtroom without them.

In addition, Chen looks quite fit. He has lost the extra weight he appeared to have in previous photos and he is alert with relatively high morale.

Looking out through the two thick glass panes and the thick steel bars, he said we — the visitors — looked like we were in prison, while he felt free.

In fact, we were locked inside the reception room, but our door was eventually opened and we came out, while Chen went back to his cell.



Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian Languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

[Fwd: LETTER TO THE EDITOR of The Taipei Times]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Date:	Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:16:35 +0800
From:	richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:	vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
Organization:	NCKU
To:	letters@taipeitimes.com
CC:	raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw, paulchow@ncnu.edu.tw, rquinn@nyu.edu

TAIPEI TIMES
19 September 2005

cc: Scholars at Risk, Professor Ray Dah-tong, Professor Paul Chow

Dear TAIPEI TIMES,

As you may know, NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY has been in violation of laws and human rights for many years now.
         In 1999, officials held secret meetings and used secret letters to effect my dismissal. In 2001, the university president, KAO CHIANG, refused to comply with a legal Ministry of Education ruling for more than two years. Only outside pressure forced his compliance.
         As of recently, university officials still pretend to "hold meetings" on issues settled in a Ministry ruling of January, 2001. The university has still not apologized, nor issued back increments. I received back pay only under court order that allowed my bank access to the university bank account.
    There are issues involved in this case a democratic press should consider:
    1. There must be legal principles. No university president should be allowed, without penalty or dismissal, to defy a legal ruling.
    2. If the Ministry of Education allows officials to ignore or delay its rulings, it denies justice and invites more abuses. If faculty know the Ministry cannot insure rights, professors will likely give in to peer pressure in grading, research, etc. This happened during the SARS crisis. Apart from health risks, this caused international problems for Taiwan.
    3. If a university can defy the law, there is no reason to trust it acts honorably in other areas, such as grading, research, etc. It also weakens trust in government.
    4. International exposure of this case will undermine belief in Taiwan's commitment to human rights. Legal violations in themselves are not the main issue (they occur elsewhere too). Indifference to these violations is more serious.
    I understand there is misconduct here as elsewhere. What I cannot understand is faculty and media indifference to such misconduct. That's not a sign of a committed democracy.
    5. A case like this, against a Taiwan professor or student in America, would be quickly exposed by the media, insuring quick remedy. The certainty of exposure would prevent it happening in the first place.
    A scandal at a university in Hong Kong was headline news (I was in Hong Kong at the time). This resulted in real changes in administration, including resignations.
    Our university officials defy laws because they don't fear consequences or exposure. They have nothing to lose. They're neither fired nor demoted, regardless of misconduct. This breeds arrogance among university officials and fear among faculty. That's no way to advance democracy.      
    6. What's troubling about this case is refusal to admit wrongdoing or to reform. Officials repeat their misconduct even as they're advised of past mistakes.
    Committees are indifferent to Ministry rulings and legal principles. To support colleagues, they rubberstamp past abuses.
    This not only costs taxpayers money and appellants time. It shows committees are not qualified to advance education and research.
    7. Consider rights of Taiwan citizens too: A student, surnamed Chen, wrote a secret letter saying she failed my course unfairly eight years before. Shortly before or after she wrote her letter, she was hired as a part-time instructor and admitted to our doctoral program.
      University admission or employment should be based on merit, not deceit. Children of tax-paying parents have the right to equal opportunity at our university.
    Thomas Jefferson viewed the press as the main branch of government. Laws cannot advance the interests of society the way the press can when it exposes disrespect for laws.
    Social rights we uphold today benefit all of us tomorrow. The press has a moral obligation to insure those rights.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Languages and Literature             
    National Cheng Kung University                                      
    Tainan, Taiwan
    (06) 237 8626
______________________________________________________________________________________________
    END OF PUBLISHED LETTER

     For Taipei Times
    Chinese reference only
    (NAME NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)
     Ray Dah-tong
     Department of Mineral and Petroleum Engineering                                                                                                   
    National Cheng Kung University
    Tainan, Taiwan
    (06) 2757575 62831