From Sunday's China Post:
[Former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian] clearly hopes to build up a swell of public support for his cause among people in southern Taiwan, pressuring prosecutors and judges to be lenient in their treatment of his case. It is even possible that Chen might take refuge in his newly purchased flat in Kaohsiung, where crowds of supporters could be marshalled to prevent police from taking him to prison.
The Post also predicted Chen would declare martial law before this year's legislative elections. And that he'd stage phony (or even real !) assassination attempts on his own party members to win sympathy votes.
Sorry fellas, but with a record like that, I've got more faith in the auguries of Bernice Bede Osol. You know — your paper's astrologer.
The Post has some recommendations for the administration of justice:
While Chen must be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law, the former president should not be permitted to hold news conferences and ad hoc rallies of his supporters while his trial is proceeding.
The equivalent of an Anglo-American "gag order" should be issued against Chen to prevent him from turning our legal system upside down for the sake of evading punishment. [emphasis added]
If I'm not mistaken, gag orders are usually issued against the media or the prosecution so the defendant can receive a fair trial. Now, the prosecution has been leaking information to the press, so maybe THEY should be penalized in that manner. But are gag orders often issued against people who merely shout their innocence from the rooftops?
I dunno. What I do know is that Taiwan's current president, Ma Ying-jeou, was also the target of one or two corruption trials last year. Like Chen, Ma also issued public explanations, and led rallies of supporters.
And yet no gag orders were issued against HIM. So why the double-standard? *
* Just for the record, I think Chen, or at least one member of his family, is guilty (and will be found guilty) of money-laundering. On the charges of corruption involving the state affairs fund though, I hope he's innocent.
But $20 million funneled through a series of 3 overseas accounts into a Swiss bank account? That sounds an awful lot like layering.
Using family members as figureheads for those bank transfers? In English, believe it or not, that's called smurfing.
And last, for a charge of money laundering to stick, it doesn't matter whether the money is "dirty" or not. Chen's best case scenario is that the $20 million only consists of leftover campaign funds which he or his wife tried to hide for tax purposes. (For some bizarre reason, it's perfectly legal in Taiwan for politicians to pocket leftover campaign funds, but they're still required to declare that income to the government.)
Well gotcha, because bank transactions for the purposes of tax evasion also fall under the category of money laundering.
All this said, I also happen to agree with the 47% of the Taiwanese public that believe Chen and his family are on their way to a KMT kangaroo court. And hysterical demands to limit the rights of the accused do nothing to lessen that suspicion.
UPDATE (Sep 17/08): Actually, the number of Taiwanese who believe the judiciary isn't handling Chen's case impartially is 46%, not 47%.