Chen Shui-bian behind bars
　

DAY OF DRAMA: Chen Shui-bian was taken to the Taipei Detention Center at 8:30am after judges granted a Special Investigation Panel request that he be detained
　

By Jimmy Chuang And Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Nov 13, 2008, Page 1
　

The Taipei District Court early yesterday morning granted a request by prosecutors to detain former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in connection with corruption allegations, making him the first former president in the nation’s history to be arrested.

Chen is accused of embezzling about NT$15 million (US$450,000) while in office, money laundering, taking bribes and forgery.

The court decision capped 24 hours of high political drama, which saw a defiant Chen being led away in handcuffs, taken to hospital after claiming he had been assaulted by a bailiff and finally put behind bars.

Chen was escorted to court at about 4:30pm on Tuesday for a hearing on a request for his detention following seven hours of questioning by prosecutors from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Special Investigation Panel (SIP).

Taipei District Court spokesman Huang Chun-min (黃俊明) said judges Liu Huang-chi (劉煌基), Yeh Li-chi (葉力祺) and Liu Hsiu-chun (劉秀君) began the hearing to consider the detention request at about 8pm on Tuesday night. During the hearing, Chen complained he had been hit by one of the guards while leaving the prosecutors’ office.
　

At about 11pm, Liu interrupted the hearing and ordered that Chen be sent to the National Taiwan University Hospital for an examination.

Prosecutors reviewed video footage to determine when Chen was allegedly hit, but SIP spokesman Chen Yun-nan (陳雲南) said later that no evidence was found to back the claim.

Although doctors confirmed that the former president had strained an arm muscle, there was no evidence to prove that the injury was the result of a blow.

Chen Shui-bian was then escorted back to the court and the hearing resumed at 1am. At 7:05am, the three judges reached a decision, granting the detention request.

Chen Shui-bian left the court at about 8am under the protection of National Security Bureau (NSB) special agents and police, arriving at the Taipei Detention Center in Tucheng (土城), Taipei County, at about 8:30am.

At about the same time, Ministry of Justice Deputy Minister Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) told a press conference that although the former president had been detained, he would have certain privileges because he was innocent until proven guilty.

“He can choose whether he wants a single room,” Huang said. “One of the NSB agents responsible for his security will also be allowed to stay with him to act as a liaison officer.”

Huang said Chen Shui-bian’s security was now the responsibility of the detention center, although NSB agents would be called whenever he was summoned for hearings or questioning.

In a statement yesterday, Chen Shui-bian’s office said the former president would relinquish his right to appeal the detention ruling in protest at what he called “political persecution” and a “political vendetta” against him.

Chen Shui-bian’s lawyer, Cheng Wen-long (鄭文龍), said in a statement that it would be pointless for the former president to appeal because the SIP had already reached a verdict and “the script has already been written.”

“It is political persecution and a political vendetta,” Cheng said.

The statement said Chen Shui-bian had expected to be detained and that this was a sacrifice he would endure.

He was willing to bear the cross of persecution, but he would like to see all other Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) politicians — who he said were innocent — released, the statement said.

The office issued another statement denying that Chen Shui-bian had broken the law and criticizing the SIP for ignoring a Supreme Court ruling, which acquitted President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of corruption charges on the grounds that Ma’s use of “special allowance funds” during his tenure as Taipei mayor exceeded the amount he received.

Chen Shui-bian’s office accused the SIP of being influenced by politics and bowing to the media, which it said is under the control of the Ma administration. The office also accused the SIP of violating Chen Shui-bian’s rights.

Saying the SIP had not obtained enough evidence to detain the former president, the statement said prosecutors had used diplomatic missions for political infighting and disregarded Chen Shui-bian’s efforts and the contribution he made to national security and Taiwan’s international space.

“Prosecutors and investigators have reached a point that they are acting arbitrarily and the judiciary autocratically,” the statement said.

The statement also argued that Chen Shui-bian was innocent of all charges and should be acquitted.

On the alleged misuse of Chen’s “state affairs fund,” the statement said the court should refer to Ma’s not guilty verdict and clear the former president’s name.

The statement said Chen claimed more than NT$190 million in “state affairs funds” and spent about NT$203 million during his two terms in office. Chen did not embezzle the money, it said.

It was “ludicrous” for prosecutors to claim that Chen Shui-bian and former National Security Council secretary-general Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) had claimed the money from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ “secret funds,” the statement said, adding that Chen had never pocketed any of the money.

Regarding political donations, the statement said Chen had admitted he had falsely declared leftover campaign funds and that some of the money was wired overseas without his knowledge.

Prosecutors, however, could not use his confession as a political tool or assume that political donations were bribes, the statement said.

As all politicians have leftover campaign funds and political donations, the statement requested a complete investigation into all election finances of all politicians — especially presidential candidates — since 1996.

The statement also criticized the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for casting doubt on the legitimacy of other parties’ assets, given its own substantial assets. At issue was not whether Chen Shui-bian would be convicted, the statement said, but rather the urgent and serious issue of election funds, political donations and stolen party assets.

Reaction is swift and sharply split along party lines
　

By Ko Shu-ling, Rich Chang And Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Nov 13, 2008, Page 1
　

Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) detention angered Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members yesterday, with senior party members and officials calling the arrest “politically motivated.”

Some 20 DPP lawmakers denounced the detention at a news conference yesterday morning, calling it part of a government plot to “thoroughly crush the opposition under the guise of democracy and justice.’’

“We have not seen any action into the investigation of the 26 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government officials’ use of their special allowance,” DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said. “Apparently prosecutors only focused on Chen and other DPP officials’ case, but skipped cases that involved pan-blue officials. Can we term this the death of the judiciary?”

The KMT government wants to beat down pro-localization morale in the guise of democracy and justice, Ker said.

Sarcastically saying that it was “a coincidence” that Chen was detained following last week’s visit to Taiwan by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and before former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) attends the APEC leaders forum later this week, DPP Legislator Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲) said she believed the detention was carried out to appease China and dampen the morale of the DPP and the pro-Taiwan movement.

The Kaohsiung City Council’s DPP caucus members handcuffed themselves during a council session to show their dissatisfaction with the court’s decision to detain the former president, displaying signs that read “Death of Justice” and “Political Persecution.”

At a press conference held after the party’s weekly Central Standing Committee meeting in Taipei yesterday afternoon, DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said the detention was “shoddily administered and an abuse of power.’’

“We hope authorities can show more respect for the human rights of [a former leader] and not incite people to cause unnecessary division,” Tsai said.

The methods used in investigating Chen’s case had “made many people feel sad, angry and humiliated,” said Tsai, asking the judiciary to abide by the law and respect Chen’s rights.

“The part that was hardest to take was the cuffing of a former president before the court had ordered he be detained,” Tsai said. “[The cuffing] was not just a show of distrust of Chen’s integrity, but also a humiliation of his supporters.”

While urging supporters to stay calm, Tsai said prosecutors had violated “the gag order” during Chen’s investigation by revealing information to selected media organizations.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) had even predicted that Chen would be indicted, and this meant that Chen had been found guilty by the media and the KMT government before his trial even began, Tsai said.

“The judiciary should not become a political tool and Ma should take full responsibility for the injustice Chen faces,” Tsai said.

Since prosecutors did not offer any convincing reasons for why Chen should be detained, Tsai said, her party believed the detention of Chen was aimed at forcing Chen into owning up to the charges, “which was against the principles of human rights and the rule of law.”

At KMT headquarters, KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) urged members not to find pleasure in Chen’s detention, and to allow the judicial system to handle the case without political interference.

“It’s a misfortune for our country to have a former president taken into custody,” Wu said.

KMT spokesman Lee Chien-jung (李建榮) urged Chen to face justice with courage and called on the public to respect the court’s decision.

Unlike the glee expressed at news of Chen’s detention by several KMT lawmakers on Tuesday, many KMT legislators kept a low profile yesterday.

KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) urged pan-blue supporters to refrain from provoking their pan-green counterparts. He also urged the DPP to stop describing the case as political persecution.

Wu asked the DPP not to block his proposed amendment to the Statute Governing Preferential Treatment to Retired Presidents and Vice Presidents (卸任總統副總統禮遇條例) that would cancel all preferential treatment for a retired national leader should he or she be found guilty in the first trial, although the privileges would be reinstated if the defendant were cleared of all charges in a third trial.

KMT caucus deputy secretary-general Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) defended the judiciary’s independence and urged the DPP not to incite conflict between different ethnic groups.

Meanwhile, Ma said he respected the court ruling, but urged Chen to focus on winning his legal case rather than wasting his energy claiming political persecution.

Ma said he was not happy about Chen’s detention, but would use it as a reminder for himself so he did not make similar mistakes.

He made the remarks in a live interview with a radio station yesterday morning.

Dismissing Chen’s allegation that he had ordered the detention, Ma said he was not surprised Chen had made the accusation.

Ma said he had never intervened in any legal case since he was minister of justice, nor had he meddled in the investigation of Chen.

His information about the case came from newspapers, Ma said.

He said he could empathize with Chen and other DPP local chiefs detained on graft charges.

“But I never said my case was judicial and political persecution,” said Ma, who was acquitted of corruption charges. “What I did instead was to calm myself down and concentrate on the case.”

Ma said a responsible politician would not accuse the judiciary of political persecution because it would only discredit the judicial system and make the public lose trust in the institution if the accuser could not produce concrete evidence to prove the claim.

He said he also waited until the High Court cleared his name to sue the prosecutors investigating his case for forging interview documents, Ma said, adding that politicians must be careful with their words and actions because they serve as role models for society.

Ma urged Chen and other detained DPP politicians to hire good lawyers to help them clear their names in court and to refrain from treating the judiciary as an enemy or political persecutor because a democratic country is not a democracy if the judiciary is not fair and just.

“It is important that the people trust the judicial system,” Ma said. “It is true that the judiciary requires reform, but some people’s state of mind also needs an overhaul.”

Ma said he had not received any information of political maneuvering in the judiciary. When he was embroiled in corruption allegations, he said he did his job responding to subpoenas and concentrated on winning the case because it was the most important and only thing he should do.
　

Ma addresses students via radio
　

POINTS OF VIEW: Ma said he had proposed organizers of rallies be required only to notify the police, but that there are many varying views on protests and the law
　

By Flora Wang And Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Nov 13, 2008, Page 2

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday turned down a demand from student protesters that the country’s national security and police chiefs be replaced over what the protesters say was police mishandling of recent pro-independence demonstrations.

Ma said there was room for improvement in the performance of National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) and National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) in handling the demonstrations.

“But this was not to the extent that they should be removed from their posts,” Ma said during an interview with UFO Radio.

Groups of college students have been staging sit-ins since last Thursday to protest against the use of excessive force by police to disperse protesters during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) last week.

Students in other parts of the nation joined the protest by staging sit-ins at their respective schools.

A group of students launched a sit-in at the 228 Memorial Park in Chiayi yesterday, making them the sixth student group in the nation to join the campaign after the sit-ins in Hsinchu, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung began on Sunday and Monday.

The students made three demands: that Ma and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) apologize, that Wang and Tsai step down for what they called the use of “excessive force” by police last week, and that the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) be amended.

Ma dodged the demand that he and Liu apologize and asked the students to look at “the whole picture” because Chen’s visit was successful, as four agreements were signed and served the public’s interests.

Ma said that Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) had on many occasions apologized over the law-enforcement officers’ conduct and promised to review the methods adopted by the police in performing their duties.

On the students’ proposal to change the Assembly and Parade Law, which requires rally organizers to apply for permits from the police, Ma said the idea was consistent with his own proposal that the organizers of such gatherings should be required only to notify police in advance.

However, Ma said the students must recognize the fact that their opinion represents only one of many different views in Taiwan.

The current system is actually very loose, because almost all applications for public rallies are approved, once there is no specific reason to reject them, Ma said.

Meanwhile, the students yesterday urged both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to propose a specific timetable for when the Assembly and Parade Law would be amended.

In a press release on their official Web blog (action1106.blogspot.com), the students welcomed the legislature’s move to put several proposed amendments to the law to committee review. But the students urged both parties to clearly promise to lift the requirements on gaining approval from law enforcement authorities before holding a rally and eliminate limits on rallies in certain areas and authorization for the police to dismiss a parade.

Article 6 of the law bans any rallies near the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, the Examination Yuan, the Judicial Yuan, all courts and residences of the president and vice president. Rallies are also forbidden at international airports, sea ports, important military zones, foreign consulates as well as the offices of any international organization in Taiwan.

“President Ma said yesterday [Tuesday] that the matter of debate was not whether organizers would be allowed to only report their planned rallies but how violence [during rallies could be prevented],” the release said. “This shows that he still takes a conservative stance and [prioritizes] social order while ignoring that the Assembly and Parade Law should be meant to protect freedom of speech.”
　

Groups demand end of Assembly and Parade Law
　

By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Nov 13, 2008, Page 2
　

Saying that the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) restricts people more than it protects them, several civic groups demonstrated outside the Legislative Yuan yesterday, demanding that the law be abolished.

“Assembly and parade are ways through which we the people express our voice,” said Wang Ping (王蘋), secretary-general of the Gender/Sexuality Rights Association Taiwan.

“The law, designed to protect our right to hold demonstrations, only tells us that we can’t do this or we can’t do that — how is that a protection?” she asked.

A demonstration organizer must submit an application for an assembly and parade permit to the local police authority six working days before a demonstration. The organizer must file a separate application for the right to use public spaces in advance and pay a NT$30,000 (US$900) deposit.

However, even if everything is filed in time and conforms to the law, it does not mean that permission would be granted.

The annual gay pride parade in Taipei — held on Sept. 27 — was forced to change its route this year because “no rally or parade can be held in the Boai District [博愛特區] as the national day celebrations were in preparation,” Wang said.

The Boai District is where many central government offices, such as the Presidential Office, are located.

The National Teachers’ Association’s (NTA) application to hold a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Education on Sept. 28 was turned down for the same reason.

“Be they politicians in the green camp or the blue camp, this law is their favorite tool,” NTA spokesman Lo Te-shui (羅德水) said. “The more political a rally is, the easier the permission would be granted. It’s always very difficult for other grassroots campaigners to obtain rally permission.”

“Before he was elected to the presidency, President Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九] and the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] voiced their support for amending the law, but now that they’re in control of both the government and the legislature, what has happened to the promise?” Lo asked.

While some of the protesters, such as Green Party Taiwan secretary-general Pan Han-shen (潘翰聲), said they could accept a revised version of the law if the new version actually offers protection of rather than restrictions on the right to assemble and protest, most others insisted that the law should be abolished.

“I don’t want the law to be amended, because however it’s revised, it will still be [the government’s] law — I want it to be abolished,” said Fred Chiu (丘延亮), an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Ethnology.

Chen’s arrest opens Pandora’s box

Thursday, Nov 13, 2008, Page 8

The detention of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday on charges related to embezzlement of his “state affairs” fund and money laundering by the former first family is a landmark in Taiwan’s history — and a depressing one — because he became the first former president in the nation’s history to be incarcerated.

The circumstances of his detention, however, are controversial.

In applying for his detention, prosecutors have effectively said to judges that they have gathered enough evidence to charge Chen — evidence that presumably cannot be tampered with.

If, as prosecutors claim, they are worried about Chen colluding with potential co-defendants and destroying evidence, then it would have made more sense to detain him weeks ago rather than after all the potential leads prosecutors were following had been leaked to the media.

Handcuffing Chen was a strictly symbolic and possibly foolish move by the authorities. Chen knew the value of this symbolism when he raised his manacled hands above his head on his way to the courthouse.

Whether the former president’s arrest will lead to more protests against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and the judiciary — which some are accusing of political persecution — is hard to foresee, because since the allegations of corruption against him surfaced, Chen has had a polarizing effect on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), for which he had long been the standard bearer.

Nevertheless, it will be surprising if the string of arrests of current and former DPP government officials over the last few months fails to create some kind of reaction from opposition supporters.

When violence broke out during last week’s visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), many people expressed concern that it had harmed the nation’s image abroad.

But already many people and organizations, including some abroad, are beginning to express concern about these detentions and what they see as a disturbing pattern in the judiciary. If these concerns turn out to be valid, the repercussions could prove a lot more damaging to the nation’s international profile.

Chen’s detention could increase anxiety that Taiwan’s reputation as a country governed by the rule of law is being eroded, which could lessen international support and leave the government even more unpopular and isolated.

There have been mutterings that Taiwan is heading the way of Singapore. But while Singaporeans may be content with a ruling party that uses the judiciary to stifle opposition, Taiwan’s situation is altogether different. Singapore does not suffer an external threat to its democracy and survival as a country.

Taiwanese are not stupid. If they view the recent actions of the judiciary to be a threat to the rule of law and the democracy they fought so hard to obtain, they will use their ballots at the next election to boot out those responsible.

But if their concerns continue to be met with aloof regard by the authorities and antagonistic, sneering language by KMT legislators, then action could be swifter still.

Taking national defense seriously
　

By Yu Tsung-chi 余宗基
Thursday, Nov 13, 2008, Page 8

A recent article by William Murray, a professor at the US Naval War College, has sparked heated debate about which strategies Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense should adopt in the face of the military threat from China.

Some defense specialists have highlighted major shortcomings in Murray’s “Revisiting Taiwan’s defense strategy,” including the oversimplification of the missile threats from China, a passive-defensive position on defense and a constrictive interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act that would be detrimental to Taiwan’s long-term interests.

Recent developments have further undermined the logic of his arguments. Murray, for example, argues that the US should provide only defensive weapons to Taiwan and reduce the flow of weapons over time. However, both Republican Senator John McCain and president-elect Barack Obama have endorsed the US$6.5 billion arms sale to Taiwan.

In other words, the policy of US arms sales to Taiwan will likely remain unchanged in the foreseeable future.

In addition, Taipei was not influenced by Murray’s strategic thinking and announced that its defense budget for next year would include funds for the production of the Hsiung Feng IIE land attack cruise missile, which Murray said was “offensive counterstrike weapons [that are] potentially destabilizing, since China would have difficulty determining if such strikes originated from US or Taiwanese platforms” and should therefore be canceled.

Having criticized the article as well-meaning but shortsighted, defense specialists can not fault Murray for his overall effort to contribute to Taiwan’s security. He writes with frankness and knowledge, and is obviously well acquainted with the history of the Taiwanese military. As such, his strategic recommendations should be taken seriously by anyone who cares about Taiwan’s national security.

Among his observations, low morale of conscript ground forces and weak reserve forces, however, are the most ironic. As ground forces, both active and reserve, are the two major pillars of Taiwan’s “porcupine strategy,” their defects — specifically in the will to counter an attack and the likelihood of total collapse at the beginning of hostilities — should make us pause.

Taiwan’s ground forces policy is based on the principle of the “separation of active and reserve forces” — the former is in charge of launching strikes while the latter is responsible for homeland defense.

Furthermore, because of defense budget constraints, it makes sense to put more, not less, structure into the reserve components in line with the principle of “minimization of active forces and maximization of reserve forces in store.”

Taiwan has about 2 million reserve forces ready to defend their country at a moment’s notice. Murray argues that numerous informed observers harbor doubts about the responsiveness of the reserve forces and their will to fight if called upon.

But responsiveness to a call to arms is only the first step. Just as important is the ability to fight.

In recent years, Taiwan’s military has built up a well-honed combination of defense volunteers and constabulary forces to ensure the flow of reservists for training and annual maneuvers. This mechanism has ensured high participation by reserve forces, as demonstrated by the Han Kuang series of military exercises. The average attendance rate for training exercises is about 98.5 percent, higher than the 93.8 percent among US troops during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Evaluating combat readiness, on the other hand, is an imperfect science, which means that the best benchmarks at our disposal are ensuring that one’s rifle is close at hand, that forces are well-organized, well-equipped, well-trained and mentally prepared to fight.

Taiwan’s military has made impressive progress in training its reserve forces. For instance, training courses were reconfigured to meet defensive mission needs. Cooperative training with local military branch schools was authorized. Greater use of battlefield simulators and interactive video systems was made at every training brigade. Regional training centers were set up so that units from different cities and counties could pool training resources.

Having said this, some prophylactic measures to boost troop morale should be seriously considered. Reserve forces must have the proper equipment to perform their missions. Active and reserve forces fighting at the same time should have equal claim on modern equipment inventories.

In case of war, reserve forces would mainly be in charge of littoral, civil and critical infrastructure defense. However, at present reserve forces are mainly equipped with weapons that are being phased out by active forces. Weapons such as rifles, machine guns and mortars are ill-suited for the high-technology combat that would characterize an invasion by China.

Murray argues that reserve forces should be equipped with mobile coastal-defense cruise missiles such as the truck-mounted Harpoon because “a fairly small number of these missiles would likely devastate China’s armor-carrying amphibious ships or hovercrafts.” In addition, short-range man-portable and truck-mounted air-defense systems such as the Stinger, Avenger and Chaparral should be added to the inventory to secure critical infrastructure and conduct urban warfare.

Ensuring that reserve forces receive the kind of training and weapons they need will make them capable of defending the homeland. In addition, as much as possible, reserve components should train with the active military. When reserve forces become a synchronized part of the larger active forces, their potential combat effectiveness and readiness will be greatly increased.

Only if we are wise in our reliance on well-organized, well-equipped and well-trained ground forces can we be assured that a Chinese invasion would be met with the proper force.

Yu Tsung-chi is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in the US.