December 2008 – Page 2 – The Foreigner in Formosa

Breaking The Golden Thread

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt . . ."

— Viscount Sankey LLC in Woolmington v. DPP [Just how ironic is THAT case name? — The Foreigner]

From today's Taipei Times:

[A spokesman] later said [Taiwan's] Presidential Office was in favor of [changes to a Taiwanese law] if "a balance could be reached between presumption of innocence and public impression of the suspect." [emphasis added]

Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou must have learned some VERY cutting-edge legal theories when he earned that PhD in law from Harvard University. So cutting-edge in fact, that Ma's standard of justice shares less in common with Lord Sankey's than with China's Cultural Revolution.

Might make for a good reality TV program, though. Let's call it, "The People's Republic Court". All Taiwan needs to do is find some KMT Judge Wapner wannabe — he can be in charge of the "presumption of innocence" part of the verdict. Meanwhile, a special 1-800 number at the bottom of the screen could allow viewers to vote, in order to give weight to the "public's impression of the subject."

At the trial's conclusion, a television producer of unusual probity and wisdom would be on hand to split the difference. To reach the delicate equilibrium of justice. Ma's balance point, if you will.

All of Taiwan owes Ma Ying-jeou a debt of gratitude. It was high time SOMEBODY finally put the "Show" back into the Show Trial!

Postscript: Now we know how sincere the KMT was when they decried populism in Taiwanese politics. Over there at Harvard, Ma's former law professors ought to hang their heads in shame.

UPDATE: Despite his many critics and political enemies, President Richard Nixon NEVER had his secret service protection stripped from him by the American Congress, as Taiwan's KMT now proposes to do to former President Chen Shui-bian.

(Nixon did however, voluntarily waive his secret service protection roughly ten years after he resigned from office.)

Sounds Like Somebody’s Hankerin’ To Harvest A Few Organs

Guess there's not enough Falun Gong members in Taiwan to fit the bill. From Friday's China Post:

The Presbyterian Church has been meddling in China's domestic politics for nearly a century. It has driven a wedge between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan by instilling hatred for mainland Chinese in the hearts and minds of Chinese on Taiwan.

Hard to figure out exactly what the author means by "China" here. First of all, if he means the Republic of China (Taiwan), then he's surely in error, because Taiwan was a colony of Japan a hundred years ago. Any "meddling" that might have taken place a hundred years ago would therefore have been in Japanese imperial affairs, not in China's domestic politics.

On the other hand, if by "China" the author is referring to the People's Republic of China, then again he's wrong, because Mao expelled all Western churches back in '49.

I'll assume then, that by "China" the writer means "Taiwan", and by "nearly a century", he means 60 years. That would suggest that the editorialist bears a grudge regarding the Presbyterians' opposition to human rights abuses by Taiwan's former dictators.

Such complaints by KMT apologists are a bit rich, however:

In 1975, after the KMT confiscated romanized Bibles and prohibited the printing of romanized texts, the [Presbyterian Church of Taiwan] issued "Our Appeal — Concerning the Bible, the Church and the Nation" which asked that the government respect religious freedom and carry out political reform.

Talk about meddling! In the 1970s the KMT dictatorship in Taiwan OUTLAWED Bibles written in the Taiwanese vernacular. In doing so, it violated two fundamental principles held by all modern democratic states: that of religious freedom and that of separation of Church and State. (Which should come as no surprise, because Taiwan in the '70s was no democracy.)

As for any "wedge" that has been driven between the Taiwanese and the Chinese, the writer conveniently forgets to mention any possible role that decades of Chinese belligerence and threats of war might have played in fostering anti-Chinese sentiment — or that KMT anti-communist propaganda might have played a role as well.

UPDATE: Noticed a few similarities between this 2004 Bevin Chu blog post from a few years back and the piece in Friday's China Post.

Technically, it's not plagiarism, since I believe Mr. Chu wrote the Post's editorial as well. But it's still quite a long passage to simply CUT-AND-PASTE, however:

As part of his election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.

A furious Chen Yu-hao responded by appearing on television and revealing the ugly truth. Chen Shui-bian had eagerly pocketed a fortune in political contributions from Chen Yu-hao over the past decade.

When Chen Shui-bian tried to deny the charges, Chen Yu-hao revealed that ROC legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, a DPP "elder" with a reputation for honesty within DPP circles was an eyewitness who saw Chen Yu-hao hand First Lady Wu Shu-chen a bag full of cash.

Considering Shen was also Chen Shui-bian's campaign manager, Chen Yu-hao's revelation put Shen in a somewhat awkward position. Rather than lie, Shen went into hiding for the following week.

What happened next was like a scene out of a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick.

A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual truth did these supposedly devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."

Be that as it may, I cannot find any corroboration for Chu's story about Taiwan's Presbyterian Church. I can only speculate that Church leaders may have said something about "forgiveness" at the time (as Christians often do), and that Chu has misinterpreted — or, to be less kind, twisted — their statements to suggest the Church advocates the telling of deliberate falsehoods.

UPDATE (Dec 13/08): Mr. Chu's account of the Chen Yu-hao story appears a bit one-sided. From AsiaTimes Online:

In early February [of 2004] Chen Yu-hao faxed three letters to opposition legislators claiming that he had made donations to the election campaign of President Chen Shui-bian. At first he tried to claim that Chen Shui-bian had simply pocketed the money, a claim that was refuted by officials from Chen Shui-bian's own DPP, who produced photocopies of the receipts.

[…]

The DPP also pointed out that Chen Yu-hao had given donations 10 times as large to both the other rival candidates for the 2000 presidential election; Lien Chan of the Kuomintang (KMT) and James Soong, then running as an independent candidate got NT$100 million each.

On top of this Chen Yu-hao had given another NT$100 million to the KMT in the early 1990s, which somehow never made its way into party coffers but ended up in the private bank accounts of Soong's family members.

[…]

There is no doubt that Soong transferred NT$248 million of KMT funds into the bank accounts of his family members in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance Corp, of which NT$100 million came from Chen Yu-hao and another NT$80 million from construction company boss Liang Po-hsun. Liang is also a fugitive from Taiwanese justice, accused of embezzling money from the Overseas Chinese Bank. And while Soong claims the money was to be used for party purposes, there is no evidence that it was so used, and Soong never attempted to return the money – neither when he left the KMT secretary-general's post nor when he left the party itself in late 1999.

Profiles In Courage

"You're a good looking boy, you have big broad shoulders, but he is a man. It takes more than big broad shoulders to make a man, Harvey, and you have a long way to go. You know something? I don't think you will ever make it."

— Helen Ramirez, High Noon

From the China Post's Nov 19th editorial, Chinese Reunification: The Moral High Ground

To defend eventual [Taiwan's] eventual reunification [with China] is not "surrendering to tyranny." It is an act of moral courage. It is seizing the moral high ground.

Exhibit A: A Taiwanese president orders the Taiwanese police to confiscate the Taiwanese flag from Taiwanese citizens in order not to give offense to a visiting Chinese Communist Party representative.

Courageous enough for ya?

And Exhibit B?

Dalai Lama not welcome to visit: Ma

"We generally welcome religious leaders from all over the world to visit Taiwan, but I think at the current moment the timing isn't appropriate."

That would be Taiwan's lion-hearted president, Ma Ying-jeou. Who BOLDLY and STEADFASTLY defended that moral high ground — by blacklisting a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (A Peace Prize winner who, if you'll recall, China routinely refers to as, "A wolf in monks robes, a devil with a human face but the heart of a beast.")

But don't you doubt for a minute Ma's indomitable spirit:

[Presidential Office spokesman Wang Yu-chi] also stressed that Beijing has not contacted the Taiwan government on the Dalai Lama issue.

And there you have it. The Butchers of Beijing didn't even need to pick up a phone for Ma Ying-jeou to RESOLUTELY anticipate their wishes. After which, he FIRMLY — and DARINGLY — and INTREPIDLY . . . uh, complied with them.

All kidding aside, I think we can put a new twist on an old J.C. Watts quote here. Character is doing the right thing — even WHEN China is looking.

Postscript: A hat tip to Notes from a Former Native Speaker for reminding me of the China Post editorial.)

UPDATE: Despite what Bevin Chu from the China Post may think, NO political party in Taiwan has a lock on the moral high ground.

[KMT] Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) yesterday urged the president to reconsider his decision.

“From a religious perspective, it is a positive thing for the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan … His visit to Taiwan would mean something in the world,” Wang said, urging the government to reconsider the matter and make arrangements for a visit.

[…]

DPP spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) expressed regret and condemned Ma for rejecting a potential visit by the Dalai Lama.

Noting that former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had both received the Dalai Lama, Cheng said leaders from democratic countries such as the US, France and Germany have also met with the Dalai Lama as a way to exert pressure on China.

UPDATE #2: Michael J. Cole wrote a good column about this. Especially liked the conclusion:

Ma has often talked about creating “win-win” situations. Inauspicuously for him, he’s about to get a taste of the “lose-lose” by having to choose his poison.

Last year, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia initially refused to meet the Dalai Lama under pressure from China — then reversed himself when public pressure mounted. Since Ma's approval ratings are pretty low, there might be some leverage there.

Strawberry Jam

I've been remiss in not blogging about Taiwan's Wild Strawberries * student movement — though not through any lack of sympathy. These students began their protests roughly a month ago, in response to the ill-treatment meted out by Taiwanese police to citizens protesting the visit of an envoy from China.

Their chief demands were then, and still remain:

1) That Taiwan's president and premier apologize for law enforcement's excessive use of force.

2) That the security chiefs responsible should resign.

3) That Taiwan's restrictive assembly laws be liberalized.

Now, the interesting thing is that the Wild Strawberries are small in number — a few hundred on bad days, perhaps a thousand on good. However, Michael Turton points out that Taiwan's Confucian culture confers a great deal of respect to students. Because of this sticky situation, the China Post's Joe Hung has written a couple of clumsy columns deriding the 'Berries. From the latest of these, Mass Rallies, Wild Strawberries:

One thing these young students do not know, but their behind-the-scenes organizers know full well, is police brutality is universal and historical. Do students really believe an apology of a president or his chief executive can end police police brutality? Anybody who replaces [Taiwan's chief of police] will condone police brutality either for what he believes may contribute to the maintenance of peace and order or just to keep his job.

Police brutality in Taiwan? Ho-hum. God has willed it thus. And there's nothing to be done . . .

Universal, police brutality may be, but Doc Hung forgets that the RATES are not. I'm sure there are isolated cases of police crossing the line in Denmark — but which in country would Hung rather be arrested, Denmark or Zimbabwe? Switzerland or North Korea? In which of these countries do the authorities think they can get away with a heavy hand? And why is that so?

The reason is that in modern democratic states the police do not operate as the private praetorian guards of the party in power. They are ACCOUNTABLE to the public. Their job isn't merely to maintain peace and order and Hung supposes, but to SERVE AND PROTECT the rights of the citizenry.

Now, as a practical matter, I don't envision Taiwan's president or premier apologizing, nor do I think the police chiefs will resign. I can however, imagine the authorities apologizing for individual excesses. In fact, they've already gone and done so in at least one case.

More of that needs to happen. In those cases where law enforcement exceeded its authority, the chiefs SHOULD apologize. On the other hand, in cases where reasonable force was used, no apology is necessary. Because everyone understands that the cops are going to use force when Molotov cocktails start flying. What they don't understand however, is why the police saw fit to dislocate a woman's finger when she was doing nothing more offensive than holding a Tibetan flag.

If the Taiwanese National Police Agency General Wang Cho-chiun and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming can't apologize for THAT, then they really are little better than hired thugs in the service of the Communist Party of China.

Hung proceeds to attempt to excuse the confiscation of Republic of China (Taiwanese) flags by the ROC police:

. . . do the idealistic students truly think those who "proudly" displayed national flags of the Republic of China shortly before and right after the arrival in Taipei of Chen Yunlin, China's top negotiator on Taiwan affairs, were doing their "patriotic" duty?

Irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant what anybody's "patriotic duty" was. Waving your own country's flag may or may not be a patriotic duty (depending on whom you talk to), but it certainly is a free speech right. A right guaranteed by Article 11 of the ROC constitution, I might add.

One might more reasonably ask the world-weary Joe Hung whether he truly thinks those ROC citizens who proudly displayed their county's flags were committing a seditious or traitorous act. If not, what crime were they committing, Dr. Hung?

Wall Street Journal Editorial On Singapore

Specifically, on a Singaporean kangaroo court's anti-defamation decision last week against the Journal's sister paper, the Wall Street Journal Asia:

Our subject is free speech and the rule of law in the Southeast Asian city-state — something on which the international press and Singapore's government have often clashed . . .

. . . the fact is that we know of no foreign publication that has ever won in a Singapore court of law. Virtually every Western publication that circulates in the city-state has faced a lawsuit, or the threat of one.

Which brings us to the ruling against us this week in Singapore's High Court. Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) was found guilty of contempt of court for two editorials and a letter to the editor published in The Wall Street Journal Asia in June and July. The Attorney General, who personally argued the contempt case against us, characterized the articles as "an attack on the courts and judiciary of Singapore inasmuch as they impugn the integrity, the impartiality and the independence of the Court."

[…]

In the second [offending] editorial, we reported on the International Bar Association's critical study of the rule of law in Singapore. This is the same outfit that held its annual conference in Singapore last year, a meeting that Mr. Lee himself touted as a sign of confidence in Singapore's courts. The Law Society of Singapore is a member of the IBA. If reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the judiciary, then Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public scrutiny.

As for this week's contempt ruling, the first line of [Justice Tay Young Kwang's] decision is revealing as a standard for Singapore justice. "Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the surface," he writes, going on to interpret the words as contemptuous because they had an "inherent tendency" to "scandalise the court." [emphasis added throughout]

It should come as no surprise that Justice Tay (or should I say, Judge Hoppy) went looking for "emanations and penumbras" of defamation, and found them in spades. I've really nothing to add, except to point out this conflict-of-interest: The prosecutors charged that the Singaporean judiciary was being defamed, and yet who was it that sat in judgment over the case? The judiciary itself!

A cozy arrangement, indeed. An INSTITUTION was allegedly "defamed", and in response, an AGENT OF THAT VERY SAME INSTITUTION pretended he could IMPARTIALLY hear the case against critics of his own employer.

Guess it never occurred to the ethically-challenged Judge Tay to recuse himself . . .

Singaporean Judge Tay Yong Kwang

Postscript: My previous post on Singapore's judiciary (using the International Bar Association's findings as a source) can be found here.

i-1