Chen committed slander, but how?

By James Yang

Taipei District Court judges, delivering their verdict on the "soft coup" slander case brought against President Chen Shui-bian, said that the president does not enjoy freedom of speech. Their reasoning was that human rights were accorded to the public to balance government control, and that as president, Chen represents the government.

This line of logic is rather wanting, and it appears that the judges might well benefit from studying a refresher course on the Constitution.

The claim that the president represents the government deserves further discussion. Legislators are also a part of the five branches of government, and they enjoy impunity in regard to what they say in the legislature to an extent that exceeds the freedom of speech granted to the general public.

It is therefore insufficient to claim that the government does not have freedom of speech simply because a distinction exists between the government and the general public.

In the US, some academics view the government's right to control public speech as a form of government speech.

For example, the government can express its standpoint through the process of imposing restrictions on satellite TV channels. According to this view, we can refer to government controls when we talk about government speech.

Under the circumstances, of course, it is important not to let the government have unlimited freedom of speech. It should be subject to constitutional controls.

Controls are also important for ensuring government transparency. The right to silence is part and parcel of freedom of speech, but it is not extended unconditionally to the government. Many articles in the recently passed Access to Government Information Law require the government to make its information available to the public.

The government, indeed, has no freedom of speech in the above two situations, either in its capacities as regulator or as a possessor of information.

But Chen's defamatory comments against former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong were neither made on behalf of the government nor were representative of government control. They were made by Chen in the capacity of an individual, and were therefore not an expression of governmental power.

If they were indeed personal comments, then Chen should of course enjoy freedom of speech in making them. Otherwise, how strange it would be for a president to be gagged and prevented from airing his own views.

The reason Chen lost the slander lawsuit is very simple. Chen does enjoy freedom of speech, but this freedom of speech is not unlimited.

That is, he must also comply with certain restrictions, one of which being that people are not allowed to slander each other. Nobody enjoys the freedom to defame others, not even the president.

Although the Council of Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation on what constitutes slander has been relaxed, it is still considered to be slander if one cannot provide evidence to back up accusations. Hence, Chen would still have lost this lawsuit if the judges had treated the president as an ordinary citizen.

But the judges clearly stated in their ruling that the government is not entitled to freedom of speech. As to what information can be made public, this was not considered to be entirely up to the government either.

The judge asked Chen to offer evidence to prove that Lien and Soong had attempted to launch a "soft coup" against the government, which he declined to do, citing the protection of state secrets.

The judge admonished Chen for this: Although the government can decide what shall constitute classified information, it must not willfully designate information as state secrets to cover up wrongdoings, which is clearly stated in Article 5 of the Law of National Secrets Protection.

If an item of disclosed information is deemed to be a state secret, judges can choose to restrict certain parts of a trial from being made public.

Since Chen was not willing to provide any hard evidence, he was unable to prove that Lien and Soong had been orchestrating a coup. Thus, the Taipei District Court ruled in favor of the opposition leaders.

James Yang is a doctoral candidate at the Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University.

Like 'go west,' credit debt's a threat

By Huang Tien-lin

Recently the issue of people plagued by huge credit card debt has become more serious. In extreme cases, people who can no longer repay their debts have resorted to robbing banks, as seen in a recent incident when a 23-year-old debt-ridden man was arrested following an attempted armed robbery.

In retrospect, most banks have thrived thanks to their credit card services. Some of the private-run banks have fared better than state-run banks as a result of the 20 percent revolving interest rates they charge on credit cards.

To promote their services, private banks are spending an average of NT$800 million (US$24.1 million) each year to scramble for the NT$170 billion revenue generated by credit card interest.

Over the years, the local banks' charging of higher interest rates on credit cards has indeed brought them huge profits, but this has also left tens of thousands of people deep in debt, creating a new challenge for the government.

We can conclude that the emergence of these "credit card slaves" indicates an industry will not necessarily protect the public interest while it pursues its own.

More than a decade ago, the media applauded the efforts of local banks when they encouraged people to apply for credit cards, saying it would stimulate domestic consumption and ultimately boost the nation's economic development.

At that time, whoever dared to criticize this thinking or ask the government to set up regulations governing credit cards was regarded as a troublemaker.

Since the government had no intention of adopting an active approach in dealing with the issue of credit card debt, more and more people have thus had problems dealing with their credit problems.

There are a lot of similarities between the issues resulting from the use of credit cards and the relocation of Taiwanese enterprises to China.

Over the past 10 years, many enterprises have jumped on the "China fever" bandwagon, while China has also provided various economic incentives to lure Taiwanese businessmen into investing there.

The nation's pro-China media outlets and academics have also been advocating the "go west" principle, insisting that this state of affairs creates a win-win situation for both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Although some have occasionally warned the government of looming danger, these critics have been ridiculed for confining themselves and excluding themselves from the outside world. The government maintained a policy of indirectly encouraging China investment by giving the industry a free hand. This is the root of many economic problems that the nation is now facing.

A decade ago, the number of credit cards in circulation broke through the 30 million barrier. This glorious achievement also resulted in more than 100,000 "card slaves," which created problems for both banks and the authorities.

At the same time, the "boldly march westward" and "active deregulation" policies resulted in total Taiwanese investments in China hitting US$280 billion, with more than 1 million Taiwanese relocating to China. Although successful Taiwanese businesspeople are enormously wealthy, failed businesses moved their money to China, leaving their debt back home.

As a result, banks sacrificed their surpluses to balance bad loans, thus transferring the cost to society.

As a result of shrinking tax income, the economy and construction shrank and unemployment rates remained high while salaries stagnated.

A few days ago, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators and the opposition reached an agreement to amend the Banking Law in order to help "card slaves," by regulating the interest rates of credit cards and cash cards.

This move was fiercely opposed by banks and the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC).

But legislators should be admired for speaking up and fighting for what is right.

It also reminded the general public and banks that although the trend is towards liberalization, the financial and economic sectors still require order and management (in fact, the FSC's restriction on establishing new financial holding companies and banks also violates the liberalization principle.)

The credit card problem and the problem with companies moving to China have different effects on the government.

In the case of credit card services, both beneficiaries and victims are in Taiwan.

Although it creates problems in the lives of hundreds of thousands of "card slaves," it is possible to resolve the issue through wealth redistribution measures such as interest exemptions.

As for Taiwanese businesses going west, without effective management the losses and suffering created by the economic slowdown, falling real salaries and increasing unemployment rates will have to be borne by all 23 million Taiwanese. This is because those who benefit are sitting on the other side of the Taiwan Strait.

More seriously, if the nation's industry continues to move to China and the government continues to relax regulations, it will not be long before Taiwan becomes an economic satellite of China.

Politically, Taiwan could lose its liberal democracy after being swallowed up by totalitarian China. When that happens, the card slave problem will be a minor issue, and those suffering the real tragedy will be 23 million Taiwanese slaves.

Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president.