Diane Lee charged with fraud, forgery
　

‘SHOCKED’: The former KMT legislator’s lawyer said Lee was shocked to learn she was indicted on fraud charges for allegedly hiding US citizenship while holding public office
　

By Shelley Huang and Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 1

District prosecutors yesterday charged former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Diane Lee (李慶安) with fraud and forgery for deliberately concealing dual citizenship while holding public office.

Prosecutors allege that in the personnel forms she filled out as a Taipei City councilor in 1994 and during her three terms as a lawmaker from 1998, she deliberately left blank the field asking whether she held citizenship from a country other than the Republic of China.

Prosecutors also allege that the more than NT$100 million (US$3 million) in income Lee earned during her terms as councilor and lawmaker were gained via illegal means, since she illegally obtained the seats while holding dual citizenship.

The money includes NT$22.68 million in income and public funds from her term as city councilor and NT$80.09 million from three terms as legislator.

The matter first came to light in March last year when Next Magazine reported that Lee still possessed a US passport.

The Nationality Act (國籍法) prohibits government officials from holding dual citizenship and requires that those who are dual citizens give up their foreign citizenship before assuming office.

In January, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office received official confirmation from the US Department of State that said that Lee’s US citizenship was valid.

She had resigned from the KMT in December and gave up her position early this year.

In February, the Central Election Commission revoked its declaration of Lee’s election as a member of the seventh Taipei City Council and of the fourth, fifth and sixth Legislative Yuan and annulled all her election ­certificates from 1994 to 2005 after determining that she held US citizenship during that period.

Lee’s lawyer, Lee Yung-ran (李永然), told reporters that his client could not accept the indictment and added that he was confident that judges would find his client not guilty.

“She served as an elected representative and participated in the legislature for 14 years. This would be unacceptable for anyone in her position,” Lee Yung-ran told a press conference.

Lee Yung-ran said his client was shocked to learn that she had been indicted on fraud charges, adding that she had never deceived her electorate during her terms as a public servant.

Lee Yung-ran said his client earned her city councilor and legislator seats by serving the people.

Asked for comment, KMT Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) said she respected the judiciary, adding that Diane Lee should be punished if the court finds her guilty of fraud.

She also urged prosecutors to complete the investigation of former Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator George Liu (劉寬平). Liu was found to have US citizenship during his legislative term. The Central Election Commission also annulled his election result and invalidated his election certificate.

“Since he was allegedly involved in the same offense as Lee, prosecutors should deal with his case by the same standard,” Lo said.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) criticized the ­prosecutors for being lenient on Diane Lee by charging her with fraud and forgery and not corruption.

The law stipulates that when a suspect is convicted of corruption or money laundering, the illegal income will be retrieved automatically. However, in fraud cases, if the offender refuses to return the income of his or her own accord, the government must file a civil lawsuit to reclaim the illegal income.

“The way the prosecutors handled the case was they turned big problems into small ones and then the small ones will turn into no problem at all,” DPP Spokesman Chao Tien-lin (趙天麟) said, adding that the party found the charges in the indictment unacceptable.

DPP accuses Ma, Wu of lying about Hong Kong trip
　

By Loa Iok-sin and Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 1

The ruckus surrounding Premier Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) Hong Kong trip continued to escalate yesterday as the Democratic Progressive Party accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Wu of lying about the reasons for Wu’s trip, urging them to tell the truth.

“Wu’s Sept. 5 trip to Hong Kong pertains not only to his allegiance to the country, but also to the honesty of the leader of our country,” DPP spokesman Chao Tien-lin (趙天麟) told a news conference. “We therefore hope that Wu and President Ma will clearly explain everything to the public.”

On Sept. 3 and Sept. 4, Ma talked with Wu about appointing him premier. Wu left for Hong Kong on Sept. 5 and returned the following afternoon before the Presidential Office announced Wu would take office on Sept. 7.

The DPP has accused Wu of discussing his premiership with Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) during his stay in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong media has speculated that Leung — the convener of the territory’s Executive Council and a permanent member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — is Beijing’s favored candidate to become Hong Kong’s next chief executive. The DPP has accused Wu of making the visit to gain approval for his premiership from China.

The Executive Yuan on Tuesday confirmed that Wu met Leung and had lunch with him at noon on Sept. 5. However, discrepancies remain between accounts of the trip offered by Ma, Wu, Wu’s aide, and Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) regarding the purpose of the trip and Wu’s activities, the DPP said.

Ma told Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers at a dinner on Friday that Wu visited Hong Kong’s Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), as per his suggestion.

However, Wu said Ma did not suggest he visit the CEDD, nor did he go there because “it was the weekend.”

“Apparently, Ma and Wu collaborated to make up something to deceive the public,” Chao said at the press conference. “So now it’s not only Wu who has to clarify it to the people, Ma has to explain himself as well.”

While Su on Tuesday made public letters between Wu and Leung to prove that Wu went to Hong Kong at Leung’s invitation, Chao also cast doubt on those.

In the letter from Leung to Wu, Leung said he would respectfully await the visit of Wu and his family and brief him about protection of mountains.

“It doesn’t seem like an invitation to me — it’s more like a reply to Wu’s request to visit Hong Kong,” Chao said.

While Wu called Leung an expert in mudslide prevention, Chao said Leung has only written articles about “one country, two systems” and the economic cooperation framework agreement.

“Clearly he isn’t an expert in mudslide prevention,” Chao said.

Another difference in accounts was that Su said Wu visited Hong Kong at the invitation of Leung, but Wu said it was his initiative to visit Leung.

“It’s true that I took initiative to contact [Leung], but it’s not correct to use the term that I ‘begged’ to see him. It’s not a relationship between superiors and subordinates. We are friends,” Wu said.

Wu said that Leung visited him on Aug. 14 after he was invited by the Lung Yintai Cultural Foundation to deliver a speech in Taiwan and shared Hong Kong’s experiences in mudslide prevention with him.

“It was then that we made the appointment for me to visit him. [Leung] said then that he would wait for me in Hong Kong and have related materials [on mudslide warning and prevention] ready,” Wu said.

Facing pressure to make public his Hong Kong itinerary, Wu yesterday described himself as “a free man” prior to taking up premiership because he was a KMT legislator as well as the party’s vice chairman and secretary-general.

“As a free man, I don’t need to tell everything down to the details. Do I have to let everyone know what time I went back to my hotel and entered the room? Do I need to tell people who don’t believe me which department store I went to and which tie I bought?” Wu said.

“People who suspect that I met the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] and held secret talks: Please specify when I met the CCP,” Wu said.

Wu said he was more than willing to open himself to criticism in terms of his capacity, his understanding of the government’s policies, morality and integrity, but the allegations should not be “so ridiculous.”

“I went to Hong Kong to learn about a successful example of mudslide prevention in my capacity as a lawmaker of the Republic of China,” Wu said.

“Did I break any rules or regulations?” he asked.

When asked for comment, KMT Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) said the DPP had exaggerated the nature of Wu’s trip.

“It is true that Premier Wu failed to clearly account for his trip in the first place, but the DPP has over-manipulated the matter,” Lo said. “Leung is only a possible candidate for Hong Kong governor. He is not yet a real candidate.”
　

Keating ‘cautiously optimistic’ on US-China relations
　

'FAIR LIKELIHOOD': The head of the US Pacific Command in Hawaii said that China would probably cut off military exchanges if the US agreed to sell Taiwan F-16 jets

AFP , WASHINGTON
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 1

The top US military commander for Asia said on Tuesday he was “cautiously optimistic” on forging a conflict-free path ahead with China, despite US concerns about Beijing’s rapid military buildup.

The assessment by Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the ­Hawaii-based US Pacific Command, came despite new US intelligence guidelines listing China and Russia as main challengers and warning that Beijing was ramping up cyber warfare.

Keating, who steps down next month, pointed to China’s resumption of military exchanges with the US and its landmark anti-piracy naval mission off Somalia, where it cooperated informally with US forces.

“All of which leads me to be cautiously optimistic about the way ahead with China and even more optimistic than that about the region in its entirety,” Keating said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Keating acknowledged that China was developing “some pretty good capability” in areas ranging from submarines to anti-satellite operations to cyber warfare. But he said tensions have eased markedly since just a few years ago.

“We want to draw the Chinese out, we want to ask them to manifest their intentions forward for a peaceful rise and harmonious integration,” Keating said.

But relations could face at least temporary hiccups, he cautioned, if US President Barack Obama’s administration agreed to Taiwan’s request to sell it advanced F-16 fighter jets.

China snapped military exchanges with the US for months after former president George W Bush’s administration in October proposed a US$6.5 billion arms package to Taiwan that did not include the F-16s.

Keating said there was a “fair likelihood” China would again cut off military exchanges in that event but noted that US policy was set by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. The law ­required Washington, which had switched its recognition to Beijing, to provide Taiwan defensive arms.

“I hope China doesn’t react that way. I hope that it will take a longer-term view that our country’s policy on Taiwan has been on the books since 1979,” Keating said.

The RAND Corporation, which focuses its research on national security issues, said in a recent study that while China would face serious challenges in conducting a land invasion of Taiwan, it was in an increasingly strong position in terms of air power.

With its increasing power in ballistic and cruise missiles, China is in a growing position to suppress air bases in Taiwan as well as those of the US on the nearby Japanese island of Okinawa, the study said.

But China and Taiwan have been improving relations since President Ma Ying-jeou’s election (馬英九) last year.

While Ma himself has appealed to the US for weapons, a senior US congressional aide said the easing tensions were reducing the sense of urgency on his request.

“I’m not hearing on Capitol Hill a groundswell of pressure on the Obama administration to do more on arms sales to Taiwan,” said Frank Jannuzi, the East Asia adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the majority Democratic Party.

But Congress, he said, needs to look in the long term.

“I think the key thing to understand about the Taiwan-China military balance is that no amount of arms sales to Taiwan is ever going to give Taiwan the capability to defeat China,” Jannuzi said. “The entire exercise is one of deterrence. It’s one of trying to ensure that the Taiwanese are a hard enough target that China is dissuaded from any adventurism.”

Taiwan must fight for recognition

Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 8

In past years September has seen headlines about Taiwan’s bid for UN membership ahead of the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York. Despite setbacks deriving from Chinese obstruction, the bids helped raise Taiwan’s international profile, showing the international community that the Taiwanese people want to be recognized.

The annual bid was also symbolic, with the government proclaiming to the world its sovereignty and that Taiwan is not part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The distinction between the Republic of China and the PRC, however, is blurring as the former gradually fades on the international stage with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in power.

One example of this was the nation’s bid to rejoin the UN last year in which Ma’s administration departed from the usual path of having Taiwan’s allies speak on its behalf at the UN General Assembly for full membership in the organization. Instead, the government, citing Ma’s modus vivendi foreign policy, which the government describes as a “more pragmatic and practical strategy,” proposed Taiwan be allowed to “participate meaningfully in the activities of UN specialized agencies.”

While the government hailed Taiwan’s accession to the World Health Assembly as an observer in May as a manifestation of this new approach, it failed to offer a clear account of dubious dealings with China in the process.

This year, not only has the Ma administration decided against a bid for full UN membership, it has yet to finalize in what ways and in which affiliated organizations it plans to participate.

So much for seeking Taiwan’s “meaningful participation in UN specialized agencies.” It appears the government isn’t really enthusiastic about pushing Taiwan’s interests in this regard.

“Given the current international environment, flexible diplomacy, which is pragmatic and practical, is the most accurate diplomatic approach for Taiwan to take,” Minister of Foreign Affairs Timothy Yang (楊進添) has said.

However, under Ma’s diplomatic ceasefire with Beijing, the government appears to be disarming itself diplomatically as China continues to encroach on Taiwan’s visibility.

While some may argue that the result of this is warming relations with China, the truth is that Taiwan’s sovereignty is being diminished.

It is pathetic that the president of a democratic country would so easily relinquish the opportunity to fight for his country’s place in the world and assert his nation’s sovereignty.

Despite the government’s lack of interest in pushing for UN membership, a group of ardent Taiwanese flew to New York this week to campaign for Taiwan’s inclusion. However, there is only so much civic groups can do.

If the government cannot be bothered to fight for recognition on the global stage, it will only be a matter of time before the world starts to view Taiwan as a natural part of China.

Danger in Ma’s Hubris Syndrome
　

By Lu I-Ming 呂一銘
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 8

While President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is about to take over as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman, nobody is clear about how he will separate party affairs from government affairs. Now that both Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Vice Premier Eric Chu (朱立倫) double as KMT vice chairmen, it is little wonder some critics have called the new Cabinet a “political Cabinet,” which is public opinion-driven and service-oriented.

When Ma assumed office, he said the government was ready and called for “complete governance” as well as “complete responsibility.” These words are still ringing in our ears. However, for the past year and a half, the government’s performance has been worse than terrible. Not only has domestic unemployment hit a record high, but the government’s apathy about public suffering is clear for all to see.

Unemployment is a result of the global economic slump, but many other countries have toiled to recover their economies and already produced tangible outcomes.

Did Ma take full responsibility for the delays in the rescue operations following Typhoon Morakot? The national security mechanism failed to work properly, Ma did not bring his power as commander-in-chief into full play, and the government deferred foreign aid.

All these fall within the duties of the president, but in order to sacrifice the knight to save the king, Ma demanded that the Cabinet resign to assume responsibility. Can public anger be allayed only by the resignation of the Cabinet?

Although he visited disaster areas and apologized to survivors, Ma said that “there were only complaints, no criticism.”

This is a far cry from the reality. After all, post-disaster reconstruction is about more than relocation. The serious task for the government is how to improve living standards for the disaster victims.

Ma’s overbearing behavior can be seen in his comments quoted by media over the past few years. In response to a group of Aborigines in Sindian (新店), Taipei County, during the presidential election campaign in 2007, Ma said: “I see you as human beings.”

During his visit to the disaster areas in the wake of Morakot last month, he was quoted as saying, “But I am here now, aren’t I? You see me now, don’t you?”

When a typhoon survivor cried, “President Ma, save me,” Ma responded: “Let me finish talking, and then I will save you.”

Although Ma clarified these comments afterwards, they left a deep impression on the public.

Recently, famed neurologist Chen Shun-sheng (陳順勝), citing a paper in the British medical journal Brain, said Ma might suffer from “Hubris Syndrome” — a form of acquired personality disorder of which Ma has shown signs in his peremptory comments.

Someone with hubristic traits may cause crises that otherwise could have been averted. Hubris Syndrome is a result of being under excessive pressure, lacking sleep and constantly running on adrenaline.

Although there is no drug treatment, former British foreign secretary Lord David Owen says in the paper: “Democracy is the best treatment.”

If we apply the symptoms of this illness to Ma, he at least has a narcissistic propensity with a disproportionate concern with his image and presentation. He believes that he is accountable solely to history and tends to lose contact with reality. Not only that, he has shown signs of restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness.

In terms of the foresight and gravitas that a president should have and the ability to assign the right people to the right positions, Ma is even more problematic.

Ma is always the man who calls the shots behind the scenes. The premier and other Cabinet members are his pawns. This can be shown by the fact that the Presidential Office announced the lineup of Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet through text message and the new Cabinet lineup through the presidential spokesman.

Don’t such maneuvers betray a different form of arrogance? The public often criticizes these pawns, but forget that the one that should be examined the most is the president.

Could it be said that when Ma promised “complete responsibility,” he meant his pawns should assume responsibility?

In addition, the administrative responsibility for the government’s rescue operations for Morakot sits with the Cabinet, while the president and the national security mechanism should take political responsibility.

Ma could not just replace the ministers of national defense and foreign affairs and have the premier take all the responsibility.

If some argue that the Constitution ensures the right of the president to finish his or her term, why would the Watergate scandal have led to the resignation of US president Richard Nixon in 1974?

In the wake of Morakot, Ma’s approval rating plunged to 16 percent, while Liu’s fell to 11 percent. Now that Liu has resigned, Ma cannot just pretend that nothing has happened and continue to play with his new pawns as if he were free of responsibility.

If Ma has tried to divert public attention through his inspection tours to the disaster zones and the trial against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), then the more than 700 lives claimed by Morakot were all wasted.

Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.

Flaws mean Chen verdict violates the Constitution
　

By Hung Ying-hua 洪英花
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 8

Judicial power comes from the idea that sovereignty rests with the people and that courts must uphold the right to institute legal proceedings. Judges are guardians of the public’s rights and should abide by the Constitution and the law to protect the public’s rights. Decisions based on violations of legal procedure are illegitimate. The verdict in former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) corruption trial is therefore invalid, violating constitutional articles 80 and 16 and constitutional interpretation No. 530.

The legal principle of a “legally competent judge” is at the heart of Article 80, which prescribes a basis for ensuring a fair court. The concept of a legally competent judge is key to ensuring fairness when implementing Article 16, which ensures the right to institute legal proceedings as stated in articles 80 and 16 and in constitutional interpretation No. 530. Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) was not a legally competent judge for the Chen case.

The verdict also violates constitutional Article 8 and constitutional interpretations No. 384 and 392. Article 8 states that “no person shall be tried or punished otherwise than by a law court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.”

The term “competent court” referred to in constitutional interpretations No. 384 and 392 refers to a “tribunal composed of a judge or a panel of judges empowered to try cases.”

Legally competent judges can hear trials. However, Tsai was replaced by his superiors during the Chen trial and lacked the judicial power to preside over the case and the power to detain him.

The verdict also breaches constitutional interpretation No. 653. Constitutional Article 16 protects the right to institute legal proceedings. Citizens have the right to request a fair trial based on legitimate legal procedures, and no one should be deprived of this. These principles are explained in constitutional interpretation No. 653. While Chen is a former president, his guarantees to legitimate legal procedure and the right of personal freedom should be the same as any other citizen’s and may not be ignored or made stricter for him.

Additionally, the verdict violates Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that lists regulations for combining cases subject to the jurisdiction of several courts at the same level under one court. Based on the spirit of these regulations, cases in courts at the same level can be combined only following a ruling to this end. The change of judge during Chen’s trial was not based on such a ruling and breached the law.

Moreover, the verdict violates constitutional articles 78, 171, 172 and 173; Article 5, Paragraph 4 of the Additional Articles to the Constitution; and constitutional interpretations Nos. 371, 572 and 590. Consolidated trials are aimed at preventing disagreements over decisions and making proceedings more economical, but are mostly the result of the accused agreeing to a consolidated trial. If the accused disagrees, he must not be deprived of his right to a legally competent judge.

In terms of disputes over the constitutionality of a case, judges should actively seek and wait for a constitutional interpretation instead of relying on their own opinions to determine whether something is unconstitutional.

Finally, the verdict violates constitutional interpretation No. 418, which states: “Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bring a lawsuit and the intent is to ensure that the people have the right to initiate lawsuits in accordance with the legal procedures and the right to a fair trial.”

Justice is not just about someone being pronounced guilty or not guilty — proper procedures should be followed and upheld.

Hung Ying-hua is a division chief judge in the Shilin District Court.