Control Yuan to investigate security abuses
　

By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008, Page 3
　

At the request of civic groups and academics, the Control Yuan will launch an investigation into whether National Police Agency (NPA) and National Security Bureau (NSB) heads broke the law during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and his delegation earlier this month.

Twenty-five civic groups and 218 academics filed a petition with the Control Yuan yesterday, calling for an investigation into the actions of NPA Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞), NSB Director Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) and National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起).

The petitioners accused the NPA and NSB of violating civil liberties when executing “Operation Concord” to protect Chen and his delegation during their Nov. 3 to Nov. 7 visit.

Chen arrived in Taiwan to sign four agreements with Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) aimed at enhancing cross-strait ties.

“In executing ‘Operation Concord,’ [the NSB and the NPA] violated people’s freedom of movement and the right to be at public places, taking excessive measures such as closing off the airport, public roads, sidewalks and hotels, all in the name of ‘protecting Chen’s personal safety,’” the petition said.

“In our constitutional history, the government has never closed off public spaces on such a large scale or so seriously restricted freedom of movement. The aforementioned agencies have obviously violated several laws,” it said.

The petition also cited various incidents of abuse that allegedly occurred during Chen’s stay.

In several cases, individuals wearing T-shirts calling Taiwan a sovereign country, holding the Republic of China or Tibetan flags, or shouting pro-independence slogans were forcibly removed by police and prohibited from walking past buildings in which Chen was at the time.

In other cases, a woman was taken to a police station for videotaping Chen’s convoy leaving a hotel, while several anti-China demonstrators who protested peacefully were beaten by police and severely injured.

“There should already be some mechanism in our government system — for example, prosecutors — to assess such abuses of power, but nothing has been done so far,” Yen Chueh-an (顏厥安), a National Taiwan University law professor, told a press conference outside the Control Yuan before submitting the petition.

“Sadly, nothing has happened and we suspect that something went wrong in our government system. That’s why we are taking this [petition] to the Control Yuan,” Yen said.

“We brought proof of the NPA and the NSB’s wrongdoing, including videos recorded by the media and individuals on the scene, pictures, injury reports and police reports,” said Chiu Hei-yuan (瞿海源), a sociology research fellow at Academia Sinica.

Control Yuan member Huang Huang-hsiung (黃煌雄) accepted the petition and said he would investigate.

“I will ask the concerned parties to explain what happened and summon them to appear in person if necessary,” Huang said. “If everything goes well, the investigation should be completed in three months.”

According to the Constitution, Wang, Tsai and Su could face impeachment if the Control Yuan finds them guilty.

China’s non-democratic advantage

Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008, Page 8

The just-concluded APEC leaders’ summit in Lima, Peru, was very much the affair of one giant, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), leaving pretty much everybody else to vie for a rare spot in the light.

China’s shadow was especially long this time around as everybody either waited to see what contributions it would make to reviving the slumping global economy or sought to ink various trade or military agreements with it.

Such attention did not go unnoticed, prompting fears among other powers that China may be gaining too much of an advantage and too quickly filling a vacuum in places like South America for their comfort. As the world’s second-biggest economy and a contender for leadership in Asia, Tokyo has been especially sensitive to Beijing’s opportunism, with fears that China’s GDP could surpass Japan’s within as little as 15 years.

Although China has also suffered from the global economic downturn, there is a universal expectation that it is somehow better equipped to deal with the situation, or at least that it can provide harder-hit economies with precious lifelines. More than just its economic clout, however, what has compelled world leaders to turn to China — or to sing in Chinese, as Cuban President Raul Castro did during Hu’s visit to Havana ahead of the summit — is Beijing’s political consistency.

In the churning seas of economic uncertainty, people’s reaction is to seek symbols of stability. With its tight grip on critical sectors of the economy and even more pervasive control over politics, Beijing provides that coveted stability. As a result, countries will be tempted to ignore authoritarian excesses, reports of systematic torture, or findings that Beijing is intensifying its electronic warfare efforts, for a chance to strike deals with it. In the eyes of the world, Beijing’s non-democratic system is nothing to be feared or criticized. It is, rather, an advantage.

Here again, Japan serves as the perfect contrast. As the world’s No. 2 economy, Japan would be the next logical option for countries seeking investment or free-trade pacts such as the one China signed with Peru last week. The main difference, however, is that while China provides a sense of continuity, democracies like Japan are hampered by uncertainty: While Hu was feted and made deals, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso was beleaguered by domestic problems, battling an opposition that is stalling legislation in parliament and calling for snap elections. While Hu did not have to worry about public opinion or electoral challenges, Aso’s every move at the summit was seen as a test of whether he can boost his support as the country prepares for general elections by next September.

It is this uneven playing field — a democracy, with all its systemic red tape and friction, and an authoritarian regime — competing for leadership that prompted Yoshinobu Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo, to say: “China is picking up momentum in terms of diplomacy [while] Japan has been stalled [and] may not be able to return to a competitive position in the race for Asian supremacy.”

Beijing is fully aware of the great opportunities the global financial downturn has created for it. If it ever needed confirmation that the world would be willing to put on blinders to do business with it and that it need not worry about having to mend its ways to meet standards of global citizenship, that confirmation was provided by the manner in which world leaders bent over backwards for a chance to shake Hu’s hand.

In a moment of weakness, it may be tempting to seek China’s help. But the long-term consequences for democracy could be serious.

Using the judiciary as a political tool
　

By Chin Heng-wei 金恆煒
Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008, Page 8

Over the past few weeks, people have been shocked to see Taiwan’s judicial institutions playing fast and free with the law and the Constitution. The legal bureaucrats’ shoddy and shameful actions have struck at the very foundation of democracy and the rule of law, and the creaks and groans emanating from the rotten Judicial Yuan seem to forebode the arrival of a new era of martial law.

How else is one to interpret the sight of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) wearing handcuffs on one occasion, but free of them on another? How else can one explain the arrest and subsequent release of Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬)?

Chen has been refusing solid food in protest against his detention. He was not force-fed at the detention center, and he was not handcuffed or fettered when he was taken to hospital under guard. Why, then, did the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) find it necessary to have him put in handcuffs when he was first taken into custody?

Aside from whether such treatment is a breach of protocol with regard to a former head of state, that Chen was not cuffed when he was taken to hospital shows that there was no need to cuff him in the first place. One can only conclude that the SIP had Chen cuffed just to humiliate him.

The SIP even tried to conceal its own evil intent by using the media to spread rumors that Chen actually asked to be put in handcuffs to manipulate public opinion in his favor. SIP members lined up to swear that they would resign if they could not push Chen’s case through by the end of the year. Their determination to get Chen by whatever means was clearly manifested in the cuffing incident.

Su’s case is another sign of the way things are going. She was arrested without a summons and questioned for nine hours before being taken to court, where prosecutors applied for her to be held in custody. The court granted Su bail of NT$6 million (US$180,000), but she refused bail, was detained and went on hunger strike in protest. After Su had gone 250 hours without food, the Yunlin District Prosecutors’ Office hurriedly returned to court to indict her, upon which she was granted unsecured bail.

The court’s decisions to set Su’s bail at a hefty sum at the first hearing and grant unsecured bail at the next were not based on any proper criteria.

What conclusion is to be drawn, other than that Su’s detention and subsequent release were both arranged with political motives? Regrettably, the dignity and solemnity of the law have been thrown into the slammer along with the accused.

Chief Prosecutor Lin Wen-liang (林文亮), who indicted Su, said the evidence against her was clear and solid. If that is the case, why did the prosecution not appeal the court’s decision to release her on unsecured bail?

The prosecutors even declared, in tones reminiscent of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅), that they would make the accused crawl. They should bear in mind that their battleground is the law court, not the media. Forgetting entirely the limits of their role in a democratic society, Lin and his colleagues are acting like medieval inquisitors, claiming that they seek to improve the investment climate in Yunlin.

Since when has the government been run by prosecutors? Their attitude only goes to show that the courts are under the control of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his pro-unification allies.

From Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) and Su to Chen Shui-bian, a climate of political character assassination is brewing. Is every prosecutor in Taiwan going to sink into this mire?

Prosecutor Eric Chen (陳瑞仁) of the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office, for one, has seen more than he can take. Speaking at a symposium on prosecution reform, Chen said that the prosecutorial system should avoid clustering the accused into particular groups.

Judge Lu Tai-lang (呂太郎), however, said: “All the people arrested by the prosecutors share the same party affiliation.”

No wonder the SIP has become known as the “Chen Shui-bian Investigation Panel.” Frighteningly and lamentably, the prosecutors handling these cases have not just surrendered to Ma and his clique, but have become his willing pawns.

In May this year, speaking on the 10th anniversary of the Prosecutors’ Reform Association, prosecutor Yang Ta-chih (楊大智) said: “In the decade that has passed since the founding of the Prosecutors’ Reform Association, we started with the KMT in power, followed by eight years of Democratic Progressive Party government, and now we have the KMT in power again. Ten years ago political interference in the judicial process was blatant. Now the big problem is the way some prosecutors put themselves at the beck and call of politicians.”

Even before Ma and his crew took office, prosecutors could hardly wait for the return of the good old days. Speaking from the belly of the beast, Yang exposed in a few words the reality of the KMT’s political comeback.

Speaking at a press conference following Chen Shui-bian’s detention, American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young said that the judicial process in Chen’s case must be “transparent, fair and impartial” — repeating the phrase no less than three times, and stressing that this was “very important.”

Barely concealing his criticism of the way the case is being handled, Young said with a hint of sarcasm: “I know that Taiwan’s legal system, just as America’s, views everyone as innocent until proven guilty” and cautioned that “it is important to build confidence in the judicial system and the criminal justice system.”

Ma and his government have already set Taiwan on the path toward the restoration of martial law, and only the public can stop them.

Former British prime minister Lord Salisbury said that if the people have the courage to resist tyranny, there is hope yet for their struggle. His words are as relevant today as they were when he spoke them, and just as inspirational.

Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly.