|
Was the judiciary independent?
By J. Michael Cole 寇謐將
The ruling by the Taipei District Court on Nov. 5 finding former president Chen
Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife not guilty in a bribery case was construed by many
— including this author — as a sign that the judiciary under the Ma Ying-jeou
(馬英九) administration was beginning to reassert its independence. Reaction to the
news by the pan-blue camp was so strident, and the decision so antithetical to
what ostensibly has been a policy of keeping Chen in check, that the court
appeared to have laid to rest fears that the judiciary had become little more
than a conveyor belt for the Ma government.
Commenting on the ruling, some elements within the pan-green camp, meanwhile,
said this was only part of a series of rulings that ultimately would fully
exonerate the former president. Chen’s smile as he emerged from a police van on
his way to court for another case earlier this week also spoke volumes about how
he interpreted this unexpected development.
However, we should refrain from jumping to conclusions and assuming that this
proves the independence of the judiciary. In fact, the timing — less than a
month prior to the Nov. 27 special municipality elections — is itself
suspicious. No sooner had Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) announced the decision than
the KMT shifted into high gear and turned the court ruling and by rebound Chen,
into an instrument to mobilize pan-blue voters.
Admittedly there is little evidence to prove that such a sinister plot is afoot.
That said, once we put the ruling in the context of elections in which Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates are not performing as well as expected and
where a high turnout among pan-blue voters on Nov. 27 could be a deciding factor
in very close races in Taipei and Sinbei (the name to be given to Taipei County
when it is upgraded at the end of the year), we may be tempted to revisit our
assumptions.
What if, facing the possibility of losing the traditionally pan-blue Taipei City
and currently KMT-controlled Taipei County in an election that is perceived as a
“referendum” on Ma’s presidency and a bellwether for the 2012 presidential
election, the Ma administration pressured the judiciary into finding Chen not
guilty only for that decision to reinvigorate deeply ingrained anti-Chen (and
associated anti-corruption) sentiment among the pan-blue camp?
Under such a scenario, the strategy would be to tap into those emotions to
transcend, and ultimately overturn, general lack of enthusiasm for the KMT
candidates, who for the most part have run largely uninspired campaigns. Why
else would a rally in support of Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) re-election
bid scheduled for Nov. 21 suddenly turn into a protest against corruption? Why
else would the KMT call upon voters to express their “anger” at the court
decision by voting for their candidates?
If political machinations indeed are behind the court ruling, Ma’s indignation
and crass references to the “will” and “expectations of the people” would have
been nothing more than theater, cover for a temporary, self-inflicted setback
meant for tactical gain.
After all, although Chen has been found not guilty in that particular case, the
ruling can be appealed and he faces several other charges that, if found guilty,
would keep him locked up for many years to come (the Supreme Court ruling on
Thursday sentencing Chen to 11 years in jail in a land purchase scandal is a
case in point).
Another reason to suspect the ruling may be part of the KMT’s political strategy
stems from the uncomfortable position in which the Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP) now finds itself. While it surely welcomes the ruling as confirmation that
the party is not corrupt, it also threatens to bring back to the surface a
number of issues surrounding Chen from which the DPP has sought to distance
itself in recent years. In fact, if Chen again became the focus of attention, it
would sow disunity within the party and could undermine its performance in the
elections.
Conversely, if the DPP came out and accused Ma and the judiciary of using the
ruling as part of a political game, its critics could fire back by saying that
the DPP disagrees with a ruling that proves it is not corrupt — in other words,
an admission that it is, in fact, corrupt.
Although there is no doubt that the DPP itself made some electoral gains
following allegations of corruption involving the Hau administration over the
Taipei International Flora Expo and the Xinsheng Overpass rejuvenation project,
those revelations came too early in the election to have a substantial impact on
the ultimate outcome and will likely have been forgotten by the time voters head
to the polling stations.
As many political commentators would tell us, in an electoral race, only the
last three weeks really matter. We have just entered that period and the Chen
case, along with the attendant keyword “corruption,” is fresh in every voter’s
mind. Fresh enough enough to mobilize voters who otherwise might have stayed
home.
J. Michael Cole is deputy news editor at the Taipei Times.
|
