|
On the trials of Chen Shui-bian
By Liang Wen-chieh 梁文傑
Friday, Jun 18, 2010, Page 8
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has recently heard the
verdict of his second trial, and despite being found guilty, both he and his
wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), have now had their life sentences reduced to 20 years.
In Chen’s case, the key was the Taiwan High Court’s more forgiving
interpretation of his use of state funds. The court ruled that although Chen had
spent state funds, and had also used some diplomatic funds earmarked for
discretionary use, irregularities in the claims alone did not necessarily
constitute embezzlement or corruption. That he did so under false pretenses and
under a false name amounted to no more than falsifying documents.
There is a stark contrast between this High Court ruling and the one handed down
by the Taipei District Court to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), on trial for the
improper use of special expenses when he was Taipei City mayor. At the time, the
District Court ruled that Ma had not abused the special expenses fund, despite
procedural irregularities for which his then-secretary Yu Wen (余文) was charged
with falsifying documents. This High Court ruling has now set a precedent, both
for the name of the crime and the maximum punishment applicable that will govern
sentencing on thousands of officials, big and small, accused in the future of
corruption for abusing special funds. Civil servants get no more than seven
years for falsifying documents, so it is quite a leap from this to hand down a
life sentence for corruption in the service of the state. This is the reason the
High Court reacted to the different treatment given to Ma and Chen.
If you read the actual text of the ruling, both the judges’ reasoning and the
evidence backing it up are laid out thoroughly and clearly. At the time, the
special prosecutors were under a lot of pressure to get a conviction. The
charges read out were moralistic in tone, and there were occasions when the
prosecution leaked details to the press, adding pressure to convict.
The defendant had effectively been found guilty in the court of public opinion
well before the official verdict was handed down. Somehow we found ourselves in
a situation where one defendant, Ma, could be found not guilty, and another,
Chen, could be given life, because of different interpretations of how the two
men had used state funds.
The special prosecutors had accused Chen of embezzling diplomatic funds intended
for discretionary expenses, and tried to establish the fact that tuition fees
for his son, Chen Chih-chung (陳致中), had come from those funds. The High Court
found, however, that the evidence they provided was full of inconsistencies and
without basis. It is no surprise, when the High Court handed down this ruling,
that Chen declared his faith in the law had been rekindled.
Although the embezzlement verdict was overruled, the High Court did uphold the
original decision on three of the other major convictions for graft, including
the Longtan land acquisition and Nangang Exhibition Hall cases, as well as the
accusation that he accepted a NT$10 million (US$310,000) bribe from former
Taipei Financial Center Corp chairwoman Diana Chen (陳敏薰) to secure her the
position of chairwoman of Taipei 101.
There are still many questions surrounding whether or not Diana Chen did bribe
her way into her new job, but the other two cases are indeed very damaging to
Chen Shui-bian and Wu’s defense, as the people involved have either dropped
their appeals or already entered into plea bargaining. In fact, Chen Shui-bian
had nothing to do with the Nangang case, and will contest this point in the
future, but he is looking at eight years for the Diana Chen bribery case and 12
for the Longtan scandal.
As to whether Chen Shui-bian should remain in custody or be granted bail,
political considerations aside, there should not really be any difficulty, at
least in terms of due process. There is already a very strict interpretation in
place for keeping people accused of serious crimes in custody, and so the
seriousness of the crime should not be offered as reason for continued
detention.
Also, as this third trial is to be a trial of law as opposed to a trial of fact,
there is no reason to take precautions to prevent Chen Shui-bian from trying to
collude with others or tamper with the evidence. The sole reason for keeping him
in custody would be if he is considered to be a flight risk, something which
most people agree upon, regardless of political affiliation.
For one, the court can put him under observation so that he does not try to flee
the country, but there is also the fact that he is a well-known figure, and the
high-profile nature of his case means that he would have nowhere to hide,
anywhere in the world, should he attempt to make a break for it.
There is therefore no reason to keep him locked up. If he did get out, he could
focus on preparing his appeal. He has said that he is in cramped quarters, with
hardly any room to write his petition against the conviction, while the special
prosecutors have huge resources at their disposal to prepare their refutation.
In conditions such as these, how is he to have a fair chance when it comes to
fighting his case in court?
Now that the verdict of the second trial has been handed down, the Chen
Shui-bian case is coming to a close. As far as the political fall-out of the
drama is concerned, at least after last year’s county commissioner elections,
the scandal is no longer really having any influence on the way people are
voting. Voters have moved on, and are now more interested in Ma’s performance,
record high unemployment and the question of whether Taiwan is to become further
enmeshed in China’s economic sphere.
If Chen Shui-bian is kept behind bars the issue is unlikely to go away, and it
could further stoke people’s doubts and suspicions about the judiciary. The
Taiwan High Court has already delivered a commendable ruling, and it would make
sense to now go further and let him out on bail. This would restore the image of
the judiciary, and allow politicians to lay the issue to rest when the final
verdict is delivered, regardless of their political hue.
Liang Wen-chieh is editor of the New Society Bi-Monthly.
|
