Chen Shui-bian Blames His Attorneys For Urging Him to Conceal Evidence

Chen Shui-bian Blames His Attorneys For Urging Him to Conceal Evidence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 31, 2008

After a 12 hour 30 minute marathon session, Tsai Shou-hsuing and the Full Court have taken the Chen corruption case into a new realm. One. The Full Court ruled that Chen Shui-bian will be returned to custody, but that he may receive visitors. Two. Chen Shui-bian has admitted that Chen Chih-chung and his wife are seeking a plea bargain. Three. Chen Shui-bian alleges that he classified the “Southern Front Project” as Top Secret on the recommendation of his attorneys and advisors. These developments introduce new political and legal factors into the Chen corruption case.

The main impact of taking Chen back into custody, but allowing him to receive visitors, will be political. The last time the Special Investigation Unit took Chen Shui-bian into custody, prosecutors dispatched officials to meet with his defense attorneys and videotaped the meeting. It may continue using this approach. Even though it will be allowing Chen to receive visitors, this approach should enable prosecutors to reduce the possibility of collusion. But since the prohibition on receiving visitors has been lifted, the Taipei Detention Center is likely to become Chen Shui-bian’s public relations center and bully pulpit. For example, visits by Wu Shu-chen, Chao Chien-ming and his wife, and Chen Chih-chung and his wife, will all become front page news. Also, whether Tsai Ing-wen or any Green Camp personalities visit him, or fail to visit him, will become a political issue.

Detention is not the same as imprisonment. Chen Shui-bian may still be able to post bail and obtain release. His current efforts are undoubtedly a fight for re-release or release on bail. Next year’s county magistrates and city mayors elections are also targets. If Ah-Bian is unable to play a role in next year’s county magistrates and city mayors elections, he will lose a lot of his political bargaining chips. Therefore, regardless of whether he is kept in custody, he will attempt to manipulate the outcome of the county magistrates and city mayors elections. The only difference will be whether he can emerge from detention to campaign on behalf of the candidates. Either that, or an endless stream of candidates will visit him while he remains in custody. Chen Shui-bian knows he can not be optimistic about the outcome of his trial. Therefore he must make a last ditch effort on the political front. Being taken into custody but not being prohibited from receiving visitors, may provide Ah-Bian with the perfect bully pulpit. To the Democratic Progressive Party however, Ah-Bian being allowed to receive visitors amounts to headache, because whether or not DPP leaders ought to visit him will become a new bone of contention.

Chen Shui-bian says Chen Chih-chung and his wife are seeking a plea bargain, and would like to return 570 million dollars from their overseas accounts. This was what the Special Investigation Unit referred to when it described Chen and his wife as “unrepentant,” and meriting “heavy punishment.” It said the 570 million dollars, whose whereabouts were unclear, was evidence in danger of disappearing. Only then was it able to smoke Chen Shui-bian out of his lair. In order to save his son and his daughter-in-law, under pressure of being returned to custody, Chen Shui-bian was already vulnerable. Chen Chih-chung and his wife’s plea bargain, at this late date, is less a plea bargain than an attempt to get off scot-free. Investigative authorities should demand that the “Cape 700 million” and the 570 million in the bank vault be returned. They should order the Chen family to map out their entire money-laundering operation, Including their accounts in the United States and Japan. Otherwise, how can their “confession” be considered a genuine confession? A genuine plea bargain?

During the hearing, Chen Shui-bian confessed that the “Southern Front Project” was phony. He blamed his attorneys for urging him to classify the “Southern Front Project” as Top Secret. This amounted to a confession that his classification of evidence as Top Secret was phony, and that his motive was to conceal evidence of criminal wrongdoing and obstruct justice. In other words, Chen Shui-bian has confessed to instructing his attorneys to conceal evidence, and of abusing the power of his office to destroy evidence. This of course is something the Special Investigation Unit also ought to investigate immediately.

With these revelations, Chen Shui-bian’s protestations of innocence rang utterly hollow. They further undermined whatever trust might have existed among Chen Shui-bian, his codefendants, witnesses, attorneys, and supporters. On the one hand, Chen Shui-bian confessed that he fabricated the “Southern Front Project.” On the other hand, he blames his attorneys and advisors. He did something similar when he leaked that Wu Li-pei laundered money for a “nation-building fund,” when he leaked that Tsai Chen-yuan arranged to stash Chen’s money in a bank vault, when he blamed Premier Yu Shyi-kun for the Longtan scandal, and when he leaked information about Lee Teng-hui’s own money laundering operations. In short, anyone can become Chen’s sacrificial victim, as long as he can help Chen gain acquittal, including Lee Teng-hui, Yu Shyi-kun, or Ku Li-hsiung.

Chen Shui-bian’s lack of trustworthiness, his lack of scruples, his willingness to betray his comrades, ought to have alerted witnesses and defense attorneys to the dangers of colluding with Chen. Yesterday, after the court dajourned, Cheng Wen-long actually said he was unaware of any “plea bargain.” Even Chen’s own defense attorneys have been kept in the dark.

Tsai Shou-hsuing has succeeded in getting Ah-Bian back into custody. Chen Shui-bian originally claimed he was completely innocent. Then he admitted that Chen Chi-chung was seeking a plea bargain. Finally he claimed his attorneys and advisors urged him to conceal evidence. Tsai has essentially forced Chen Shui-bian to reenact his defense strategy, from beginning to end, and forced him to reveal a number of major holes in his story. This is beneficial to the future progress of the trial. The court’s decision to detain Chen, but not prohibit him from receiving visitors, has responded to “civil rights” demands. But it has also left Chen Shui-bian walking a legal and political tightrope. It may seem to have provided a political stage for Chen Shui-bian. But it also leaves Chen Shui-bian vulnerable, caught between legal and political battlelines. When Chen must appear before a judge, or can campaign on behalf of a candidate, is not up to him.

According to the western calendar, it is New Year’s Eve. Chen Shui-bian is back in custody. For the public on Taiwan, isn’t this a case of “out with the old, and in with the new?”

陳水扁供稱律師教唆隱匿證據
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.12.31 04:11 am

經過十二小時三十分鐘的審理馬拉松，蔡守訓的合議庭將扁案帶進了新情勢：一、合議庭裁定，陳水扁收押，不禁見；二、陳水扁供稱，陳致中夫婦正尋求認罪協 商；三、陳水扁又供稱，因律師團與幕僚建議，所以將虛假的「南線專案」核定為絕對機密。這類新發展，將使扁案在政治面及法律面皆出現新變數。

收押，不禁見；主要的效應將發生在政治面。由於特偵組在陳水扁前次羈押時，曾派有檢察事務官對律師會見進行錄音錄影；此一方法今後可能繼續採用，則雖開放 面會，串證風險應可管制。然而，禁見既解，北所即很可能成為陳水扁的新聞工廠與政治舞台。例如，吳淑珍、趙建銘夫婦、陳致中夫婦的探監，皆將成為新聞焦 點；再如，蔡英文是否探監，及綠營何人探監、何人不探監，亦將成為政治話題。

何況，羈押畢竟不是服刑，陳水扁仍有保釋或開釋的可能性；他當下的努力無疑是以再爭取開釋或保釋為首務，並以明年縣市長選舉前出監為目標。因為，扁若在明 年縣市長選舉中失去角色，他的政治籌碼將嚴重流失；所以，屆時不論他在押或出監，縣市長選舉皆將成為其政治操作的題材。差異僅在，若出監即可上台輔選，或 在押則可預見探監的候選人絡繹於途。陳水扁已知其訴訟結局無可樂觀，因而必將全力在政治面作最後拚搏；而「收押，不禁見」，對扁而言，也許正是吸引視聽焦 點的最佳舞台。但是，對民進黨而言，不禁見卻是頭痛的問題；因為，探監與否，勢將成為路線鬥爭的新標籤。

陳水扁供稱，陳致中夫婦正尋求認罪協商，並願將存在海外的五點七億匯回。這是在特偵組指陳致中夫婦「惡性不輕」並求「從重量刑」，及指五點七億下落未明而 有「湮滅證據之虞」的雙管濃煙齊下，將陳水扁這隻狐狸嗆出洞來。陳水扁為了拯救子媳，且在回押的壓力下，其無罪抗辯的防禦工事到此已崩裂了一個大缺口。但 是，陳致中夫婦至今日地步始有此舉，與其說是「認罪協商」，不如說是脫罪手段；偵審當局除應命其剋日將承諾匯回的海角七億及金庫五點七億匯到，亦當命其供 出全球洗錢的全圖，包括美日帳戶。否則，豈能視為「認罪」？又如何「協商」？

這次庭訊中，陳水扁供認「南線專案」是偽造的，並咬出是律師建議將「南線專案」核定為絕對機密；這不啻證實，其所稱絕對機密根本是假的，而核定為絕對機密 之目的，是在隱匿證據，干擾審判。換句話說，陳水扁供認了律師教唆他隱匿罪證，而他自己則利用職務湮滅證據；這當然是特偵組應立即追加偵訴的項目。

此一情節的揭露，進一步顯示陳水扁的無罪辯護已漸趨土崩瓦解，也可能進一步破壞了陳水扁與同案被告、證人、律師或支持者之間的信賴關係。其實，陳水扁可以 自己一肩承擔偽造「南線專案」的罪責，但他卻指控是律師及幕僚唆使；這與他主動洩漏吳澧培為「建國基金」洗錢，又主動爆料蔡鎮宇為他安排藏金庫，再主動指 控龍潭案是行政院長游錫?所指使，更演出「抓耙子」告發李登輝洗錢，皆可謂是異曲同工。反正，所有的人皆可能成為陳水扁自求脫罪的犧牲品，包括李登輝、游 錫?或顧立雄。

陳水扁如此不堪信任，翻臉即出賣戰友，證人應警覺與他「串供」的風險太大，為他擔任辯護律師亦有被他反咬一口的危險。昨晨庭畢，鄭文龍竟稱他不知「認罪協商」這一塊，可見連律師也被扁蒙在鼓裡。

蔡守訓的羈押庭頗有斬獲。一方面，從陳水扁一開始的「全盤無罪辯護」到最後的「陳致中認罪協商」及「律師教唆隱匿罪證」，可謂已將陳水扁的通盤辯護架構 「演習」了一遍，並逼出了幾個重大缺口，有利未來審判之順利進行。另一方面，「收押，不禁見」的裁定，回應了「人權」的部分主張，卻亦使陳水扁將處於司法 與政治兩條戰線互動的高度緊張之中；這雖然看似為陳水扁提供了舞台，但也可能使陳水扁在司法及政治兩條戰線上皆陷於被動；因為，法官傳他出庭，與候選人利 用他探監造勢，皆非操之在扁。

今日陽曆除夕，陳水扁入監，對台灣的新年，有無除舊布新的意義？

Chen Shui-bian Blames His Attorneys For Urging Him to Conceal Evidence

Chen Shui-bian Blames His Attorneys For Urging Him to Conceal Evidence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 31, 2008

After a 12 hour 30 minute marathon session, Tsai Shou-hsuing and the Full Court have taken the Chen corruption case into a new realm. One. The Full Court ruled that Chen Shui-bian will be returned to custody, but that he may receive visitors. Two. Chen Shui-bian has admitted that Chen Chih-chung and his wife are seeking a plea bargain. Three. Chen Shui-bian alleges that he classified the “Southern Front Project” as Top Secret on the recommendation of his attorneys and advisors. These developments introduce new political and legal factors into the Chen corruption case.

The main impact of taking Chen back into custody, but allowing him to receive visitors, will be political. The last time the Special Investigation Unit took Chen Shui-bian into custody, prosecutors dispatched officials to meet with his defense attorneys and videotaped the meeting. It may continue using this approach. Even though it will be allowing Chen to receive visitors, this approach should enable prosecutors to reduce the possibility of collusion. But since the prohibition on receiving visitors has been lifted, the Taipei Detention Center is likely to become Chen Shui-bian’s public relations center and bully pulpit. For example, visits by Wu Shu-chen, Chao Chien-ming and his wife, and Chen Chih-chung and his wife, will all become front page news. Also, whether Tsai Ing-wen or any Green Camp personalities visit him, or fail to visit him, will become a political issue.

Detention is not the same as imprisonment. Chen Shui-bian may still be able to post bail and obtain release. His current efforts are undoubtedly a fight for re-release or release on bail. Next year’s county magistrates and city mayors elections are also targets. If Ah-Bian is unable to play a role in next year’s county magistrates and city mayors elections, he will lose a lot of his political bargaining chips. Therefore, regardless of whether he is kept in custody, he will attempt to manipulate the outcome of the county magistrates and city mayors elections. The only difference will be whether he can emerge from detention to campaign on behalf of the candidates. Either that, or an endless stream of candidates will visit him while he remains in custody. Chen Shui-bian knows he can not be optimistic about the outcome of his trial. Therefore he must make a last ditch effort on the political front. Being taken into custody but not being prohibited from receiving visitors, may provide Ah-Bian with the perfect bully pulpit. To the Democratic Progressive Party however, Ah-Bian being allowed to receive visitors amounts to headache, because whether or not DPP leaders ought to visit him will become a new bone of contention.

Chen Shui-bian says Chen Chih-chung and his wife are seeking a plea bargain, and would like to return 570 million dollars from their overseas accounts. This was what the Special Investigation Unit referred to when it described Chen and his wife as “unrepentant,” and meriting “heavy punishment.” It said the 570 million dollars, whose whereabouts were unclear, was evidence in danger of disappearing. Only then was it able to smoke Chen Shui-bian out of his lair. In order to save his son and his daughter-in-law, under pressure of being returned to custody, Chen Shui-bian was already vulnerable. Chen Chih-chung and his wife’s plea bargain, at this late date, is less a plea bargain than an attempt to get off scot-free. Investigative authorities should demand that the “Cape 700 million” and the 570 million in the bank vault be returned. They should order the Chen family to map out their entire money-laundering operation, Including their accounts in the United States and Japan. Otherwise, how can their “confession” be considered a genuine confession? A genuine plea bargain?

During the hearing, Chen Shui-bian confessed that the “Southern Front Project” was phony. He blamed his attorneys for urging him to classify the “Southern Front Project” as Top Secret. This amounted to a confession that his classification of evidence as Top Secret was phony, and that his motive was to conceal evidence of criminal wrongdoing and obstruct justice. In other words, Chen Shui-bian has confessed to instructing his attorneys to conceal evidence, and of abusing the power of his office to destroy evidence. This of course is something the Special Investigation Unit also ought to investigate immediately.

With these revelations, Chen Shui-bian’s protestations of innocence rang utterly hollow. They further undermined whatever trust might have existed among Chen Shui-bian, his codefendants, witnesses, attorneys, and supporters. On the one hand, Chen Shui-bian confessed that he fabricated the “Southern Front Project.” On the other hand, he blames his attorneys and advisors. He did something similar when he leaked that Wu Li-pei laundered money for a “nation-building fund,” when he leaked that Tsai Chen-yuan arranged to stash Chen’s money in a bank vault, when he blamed Premier Yu Shyi-kun for the Longtan scandal, and when he leaked information about Lee Teng-hui’s own money laundering operations. In short, anyone can become Chen’s sacrificial victim, as long as he can help Chen gain acquittal, including Lee Teng-hui, Yu Shyi-kun, or Ku Li-hsiung.

Chen Shui-bian’s lack of trustworthiness, his lack of scruples, his willingness to betray his comrades, ought to have alerted witnesses and defense attorneys to the dangers of colluding with Chen. Yesterday, after the court dajourned, Cheng Wen-long actually said he was unaware of any “plea bargain.” Even Chen’s own defense attorneys have been kept in the dark.

Tsai Shou-hsuing has succeeded in getting Ah-Bian back into custody. Chen Shui-bian originally claimed he was completely innocent. Then he admitted that Chen Chi-chung was seeking a plea bargain. Finally he claimed his attorneys and advisors urged him to conceal evidence. Tsai has essentially forced Chen Shui-bian to reenact his defense strategy, from beginning to end, and forced him to reveal a number of major holes in his story. This is beneficial to the future progress of the trial. The court’s decision to detain Chen, but not prohibit him from receiving visitors, has responded to “civil rights” demands. But it has also left Chen Shui-bian walking a legal and political tightrope. It may seem to have provided a political stage for Chen Shui-bian. But it also leaves Chen Shui-bian vulnerable, caught between legal and political battlelines. When Chen must appear before a judge, or can campaign on behalf of a candidate, is not up to him.

According to the western calendar, it is New Year’s Eve. Chen Shui-bian is back in custody. For the public on Taiwan, isn’t this a case of “out with the old, and in with the new?”

陳水扁供稱律師教唆隱匿證據
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.12.31 04:11 am

經過十二小時三十分鐘的審理馬拉松，蔡守訓的合議庭將扁案帶進了新情勢：一、合議庭裁定，陳水扁收押，不禁見；二、陳水扁供稱，陳致中夫婦正尋求認罪協 商；三、陳水扁又供稱，因律師團與幕僚建議，所以將虛假的「南線專案」核定為絕對機密。這類新發展，將使扁案在政治面及法律面皆出現新變數。

收押，不禁見；主要的效應將發生在政治面。由於特偵組在陳水扁前次羈押時，曾派有檢察事務官對律師會見進行錄音錄影；此一方法今後可能繼續採用，則雖開放 面會，串證風險應可管制。然而，禁見既解，北所即很可能成為陳水扁的新聞工廠與政治舞台。例如，吳淑珍、趙建銘夫婦、陳致中夫婦的探監，皆將成為新聞焦 點；再如，蔡英文是否探監，及綠營何人探監、何人不探監，亦將成為政治話題。

何況，羈押畢竟不是服刑，陳水扁仍有保釋或開釋的可能性；他當下的努力無疑是以再爭取開釋或保釋為首務，並以明年縣市長選舉前出監為目標。因為，扁若在明 年縣市長選舉中失去角色，他的政治籌碼將嚴重流失；所以，屆時不論他在押或出監，縣市長選舉皆將成為其政治操作的題材。差異僅在，若出監即可上台輔選，或 在押則可預見探監的候選人絡繹於途。陳水扁已知其訴訟結局無可樂觀，因而必將全力在政治面作最後拚搏；而「收押，不禁見」，對扁而言，也許正是吸引視聽焦 點的最佳舞台。但是，對民進黨而言，不禁見卻是頭痛的問題；因為，探監與否，勢將成為路線鬥爭的新標籤。

陳水扁供稱，陳致中夫婦正尋求認罪協商，並願將存在海外的五點七億匯回。這是在特偵組指陳致中夫婦「惡性不輕」並求「從重量刑」，及指五點七億下落未明而 有「湮滅證據之虞」的雙管濃煙齊下，將陳水扁這隻狐狸嗆出洞來。陳水扁為了拯救子媳，且在回押的壓力下，其無罪抗辯的防禦工事到此已崩裂了一個大缺口。但 是，陳致中夫婦至今日地步始有此舉，與其說是「認罪協商」，不如說是脫罪手段；偵審當局除應命其剋日將承諾匯回的海角七億及金庫五點七億匯到，亦當命其供 出全球洗錢的全圖，包括美日帳戶。否則，豈能視為「認罪」？又如何「協商」？

這次庭訊中，陳水扁供認「南線專案」是偽造的，並咬出是律師建議將「南線專案」核定為絕對機密；這不啻證實，其所稱絕對機密根本是假的，而核定為絕對機密 之目的，是在隱匿證據，干擾審判。換句話說，陳水扁供認了律師教唆他隱匿罪證，而他自己則利用職務湮滅證據；這當然是特偵組應立即追加偵訴的項目。

此一情節的揭露，進一步顯示陳水扁的無罪辯護已漸趨土崩瓦解，也可能進一步破壞了陳水扁與同案被告、證人、律師或支持者之間的信賴關係。其實，陳水扁可以 自己一肩承擔偽造「南線專案」的罪責，但他卻指控是律師及幕僚唆使；這與他主動洩漏吳澧培為「建國基金」洗錢，又主動爆料蔡鎮宇為他安排藏金庫，再主動指 控龍潭案是行政院長游錫?所指使，更演出「抓耙子」告發李登輝洗錢，皆可謂是異曲同工。反正，所有的人皆可能成為陳水扁自求脫罪的犧牲品，包括李登輝、游 錫?或顧立雄。

陳水扁如此不堪信任，翻臉即出賣戰友，證人應警覺與他「串供」的風險太大，為他擔任辯護律師亦有被他反咬一口的危險。昨晨庭畢，鄭文龍竟稱他不知「認罪協商」這一塊，可見連律師也被扁蒙在鼓裡。

蔡守訓的羈押庭頗有斬獲。一方面，從陳水扁一開始的「全盤無罪辯護」到最後的「陳致中認罪協商」及「律師教唆隱匿罪證」，可謂已將陳水扁的通盤辯護架構 「演習」了一遍，並逼出了幾個重大缺口，有利未來審判之順利進行。另一方面，「收押，不禁見」的裁定，回應了「人權」的部分主張，卻亦使陳水扁將處於司法 與政治兩條戰線互動的高度緊張之中；這雖然看似為陳水扁提供了舞台，但也可能使陳水扁在司法及政治兩條戰線上皆陷於被動；因為，法官傳他出庭，與候選人利 用他探監造勢，皆非操之在扁。

今日陽曆除夕，陳水扁入監，對台灣的新年，有無除舊布新的意義？

Taiwan 2008: From the Second Change in Ruling Parties to the Indictment of Chen Shui-bian

Taiwan 2008: From the Second Change in Ruling Parties to the Indictment of Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2008

In 2008 the political scene on Taiwan underwent a dramatic change. At the beginning of 2008, the island underwent a second change in ruling parties. By the end of 2008, on December 12, Chen Shui-bian had been indicted for corruption and money-laundering. In 2008 cross-Strait relations also underwent a dramatic change. At the beginning of 2008, agitation for a “Join the UN Plebiscite.” At the end of 2008, implementation of direct links.

These two threads: internal political struggle and cross-Strait relations affect each other. This article will address the first thread, internal political struggle. Cross-Strait relations will be addressed in a separate article.

The second change in ruling parties has totally replaced the nation’s value system. With regards internal political struggles, Ma Ying-jeou’s vision of our nation’s future has replaced Chen Shui-bian’s. Ma has adopted a no to reunification, no to Taiwan independence, no to nation-building, and no to war position. Ma has chosen to uphold the constitution, implement the constitution, amend the constitution, and to reject the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution.” With regards cross-Strait relations, Ma champions direct links and rejects confrontation. Ma champions ethnic harmony and rejects social divisiveness. Ma champions clean government and rejects corruption. Ma has rejected officials such as Tu Cheng-sheng, Chuang Kuo-jung, and Ye Sheng-mao. We can now look forward to the emergence of a new kind of public official.

Therefore this is not your ordinary, run of the mill, “second change in ruling parties.” The nation’s entire value system has been completely replaced. Of the 113 seats in the Legislature, the KMT won 82, over two-thirds. The Blue Camp won 86, over three-quarters. During the presidential election Ma Ying-jeou received over 58 percent of the vote, 7.65 million ballots. These results show that the nation’s value system has been replaced, in toto. The Democratic Progressive Party, held hostage by Chen Shui-bian, was defeated in the legislative elections and the presidential election. It was defeated because voters punished it for its pro independence stance and rampant corruption. December 12th’s indictment represents Chen Shui-bian being brought to justice for his crimes.

In fact, 2008 represents voters making a decisive, across the board choice about their future. The lifting of martial law was followed by two decades of political and economic turmoil. By promoting “nativist values,” Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian unquestionably cultivated a “Taiwan-centric” mentality. Lee Teng-hui established a precedent for Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian raised the ante. Together, they tore society apart, closed the nation’s doors, precipated political chaos, and deeply wounded the nation and society. Lee’s black gold and Chen’s unbridled greed, corrupted the body politic. As we have said before, Lee and Chen may have led Taiwan across a river, but they landed on the wrong shore. In 2008, voters attempted to heal the wounds caused by Lee and Chen’s two decades of misrule. They are hoping for national rebirth and national reconstruction, and see the day Chen was indicted as a day of national rebirth and national reconstruction.

But shifting winds have taken everyone by surprise. The legislative elections and presidential election at the beginning of the year were political sanctions. The voters used the electoral system to punish Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Chen’s indictment at the end of the year, was the justice system’s verdict against Chen Shui-bian’s corruption. Alas, the electoral process has failed to clear the air, and the legal process has failed to distinguish right from wrong. Chen Shui-bian refuses to confess his crimes. He screams he is a “victim of political persecution.” His supporters insist “Chen Shui-bian is innocent.” The “reasoning” behind this equation is “If Chen Shui-bian falls, Taiwan falls!”

Meanwhile, the two elections at the beginning of the year produced two new leaders, Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. So far both have failed to meet the expecations their supporters had for them. Ma Ying-jeou still can’t decide how to position himself. Does he want to stand on the front line, or hide out in the rear echelon? Does he want to be both president and party chairman, or does he feel the two roles should be filled by two different people? Does he want to remain an idol to his fans, or does he want to get his hands dirty in the political mud? He seems forever paralyzed by his own media image. When it comes to real world leadership, he often finds himself at a complete loss. As for Tsai Ing-wen, she attempted to initiate a “post-Chen Shui-bian era,” only to find herself marginalized by the Green Camp and the DPP. Her hopes of transforming the Democratic Progressive Party have been dashed.

The year 2008 was an historic opportunity for reflection about the ROC’s democracy. This golden opportunity is in danger of being frittered away. Ma Ying-jeou is unable to inspire the nation. Tsai Ing-wen is unable to change the DPP. The entire island remains caught in the maze of the Chen corruption case. A minority of Chen Shui-bian supporters have paralyzed the island, and are choking the life out of her.

Faced with such a situation, the public can not help wondering. What, if anything, can save democracy and constitutional government? America’s has elected a black man president. India on the other hand, has been unable to change its caste system. Both are democracies. So why are the results so different?

Can the second change in ruling parties in 2008 save the ROC’s democracy and constitutional government? Can the prosecution of the Chen corruption case save the ROC’s democracy and constitutional government? And if not, what can?

台灣二○○八：從二次政黨輪替到扁案起訴
【聯合報社論╱社論】
2008.12.30 02:53 am

二○○八年的台灣內部政治，從年初「二次政黨輪替」，走到年底一二一二扁案大起訴；二○○八年的兩岸關係，則是從年初「入聯公投」，走到年底大三通。

這兩條軸線，一條台灣內部政治，一條兩岸關係，相激相盪，互為條件，互為表裡。本文先論台灣內部政治一線，兩岸關係留待另文。

這 番「二次政黨輪替」，可謂是國家整體價值體系的全面取捨。就人物風格言，取馬英九，捨陳水扁；就國家路線言，取不統、不獨、不武，捨台獨建國；就憲政架構 言，取護憲、行憲、修憲，捨正名制憲；就兩岸關係言，取大三通，捨尖銳對立；就社會號召言，取族群融合，捨撕裂社會；就政風品操言，取清廉，捨貪腐。甚至 就官員品類言，亦是對杜正勝、莊國榮、葉盛茂之輩的否決，而期待新典型出現……。

因而，這不是一般的「二次政黨輪替」，而是國家整體價值 體系的大取捨、大換置，與大抉擇。一一三席立委選舉，國民黨贏得八十二席，逾三分之二；泛藍得八十六席，逾四分之三。總統選舉，馬英九得票率為五十八%， 得票數七六五萬。這些皆顯示選民對國家價值體系的大取捨、大換置與大抉擇。至於被陳水扁所挾持的民進黨，在立委選舉及總統大選皆遭大敗，正是因其台獨路線 及貪腐行徑受到選民的制裁；直至一二一二大起訴，則是將陳水扁的罪行交付司法審判。

其實，二○○八年的台灣，形同選民對解嚴後二十年來的 政經激盪，作出了總結性的反省與抉擇。李登輝與陳水扁，對於本土意識的鼓吹，確曾充實並鞏固了台灣的主體性；但由李登輝始作俑、再經陳水扁變本加厲的台獨 路線，撕裂社會、鎖國亂政，卻使國家社會創巨痛深。尤其，李的黑金，與扁的貪腐，更使政治體質沉淪敗壞。我們曾說，李陳二人也許帶領台灣過了河，卻上錯了 岸；選民遂在二○○八年為二十年來的扁李路線療傷止痛，並期待國家社會得以新生再造。尤其，在原本的想像與期待中，扁案起訴之時，即應是國家社會新生再造 之日。

但是，情勢的演變卻出乎想像與期待之外。年初的立委選舉及總統大選，可謂是選舉制度及選民對陳水扁與民進黨的政治制裁；年底的大起 訴，則是司法體制將對陳水扁的貪腐進行審判。但是，如今顯現的情勢卻是，選舉投票不能激濁揚清，司法似也不能澄明是非；陳水扁仍不認錯，四處呼號「政治迫 害」，而其支持者仍然主張「阿扁無罪」。這一股勢力的主軸論述是：「阿扁若倒，台灣就倒！」

相對而言，年初兩次大選後出現的兩位新領袖， 馬英九與蔡英文，卻迄今未能在各自的領域中，發揮其自我期許與受社會付託的角色與功能。馬英九迄今仍在「第一線／第二線」、「黨政同步／黨政分離」、「粉 絲偶像／戰場領袖」之間不知如何自我定位；似乎始終沉浸在他自成一格的思維與論述中，卻在實際的領導統御上往往不得要領，搔不著癢處。至於蔡英文，亦從朝 向「沒有陳水扁的時代」的道路中，被綠營與民進黨邊緣化及無意義化，民進黨的轉型再造亦已落空。

二○○八年原本存有台灣民主大反省、大轉型的歷史機遇，但此種期待卻有失落的危機。馬英九帶不動台灣，蔡英文改變不了民進黨；整個台灣遂仍陷於扁案的迷障之中。少數挺扁者，反而掐住了台灣的神經與命脈。

面對此情此境，人們不禁要問：民主憲政的最後救贖究竟是什麼？美國的民主，黑人當選了總統；印度的民主，卻不能改變種姓制度。同樣是民主，何以效應如此不同？

二○○八年，如果二次政黨輪替不能成為台灣民主憲政的救贖，年底的扁案起訴也不能成為台灣民主憲政的救贖，則台灣這個大難題的答案究竟是什麼？

Taiwan 2008: From the Second Change in Ruling Parties to the Indictment of Chen Shui-bian

Taiwan 2008: From the Second Change in Ruling Parties to the Indictment of Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2008

In 2008 the political scene on Taiwan underwent a dramatic change. At the beginning of 2008, the island underwent a second change in ruling parties. By the end of 2008, on December 12, Chen Shui-bian had been indicted for corruption and money-laundering. In 2008 cross-Strait relations also underwent a dramatic change. At the beginning of 2008, agitation for a “Join the UN Plebiscite.” At the end of 2008, implementation of direct links.

These two threads: internal political struggle and cross-Strait relations affect each other. This article will address the first thread, internal political struggle. Cross-Strait relations will be addressed in a separate article.

The second change in ruling parties has totally replaced the nation’s value system. With regards internal political struggles, Ma Ying-jeou’s vision of our nation’s future has replaced Chen Shui-bian’s. Ma has adopted a no to reunification, no to Taiwan independence, no to nation-building, and no to war position. Ma has chosen to uphold the constitution, implement the constitution, amend the constitution, and to reject the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution.” With regards cross-Strait relations, Ma champions direct links and rejects confrontation. Ma champions ethnic harmony and rejects social divisiveness. Ma champions clean government and rejects corruption. Ma has rejected officials such as Tu Cheng-sheng, Chuang Kuo-jung, and Ye Sheng-mao. We can now look forward to the emergence of a new kind of public official.

Therefore this is not your ordinary, run of the mill, “second change in ruling parties.” The nation’s entire value system has been completely replaced. Of the 113 seats in the Legislature, the KMT won 82, over two-thirds. The Blue Camp won 86, over three-quarters. During the presidential election Ma Ying-jeou received over 58 percent of the vote, 7.65 million ballots. These results show that the nation’s value system has been replaced, in toto. The Democratic Progressive Party, held hostage by Chen Shui-bian, was defeated in the legislative elections and the presidential election. It was defeated because voters punished it for its pro independence stance and rampant corruption. December 12th’s indictment represents Chen Shui-bian being brought to justice for his crimes.

In fact, 2008 represents voters making a decisive, across the board choice about their future. The lifting of martial law was followed by two decades of political and economic turmoil. By promoting “nativist values,” Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian unquestionably cultivated a “Taiwan-centric” mentality. Lee Teng-hui established a precedent for Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian raised the ante. Together, they tore society apart, closed the nation’s doors, precipated political chaos, and deeply wounded the nation and society. Lee’s black gold and Chen’s unbridled greed, corrupted the body politic. As we have said before, Lee and Chen may have led Taiwan across a river, but they landed on the wrong shore. In 2008, voters attempted to heal the wounds caused by Lee and Chen’s two decades of misrule. They are hoping for national rebirth and national reconstruction, and see the day Chen was indicted as a day of national rebirth and national reconstruction.

But shifting winds have taken everyone by surprise. The legislative elections and presidential election at the beginning of the year were political sanctions. The voters used the electoral system to punish Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Chen’s indictment at the end of the year, was the justice system’s verdict against Chen Shui-bian’s corruption. Alas, the electoral process has failed to clear the air, and the legal process has failed to distinguish right from wrong. Chen Shui-bian refuses to confess his crimes. He screams he is a “victim of political persecution.” His supporters insist “Chen Shui-bian is innocent.” The “reasoning” behind this equation is “If Chen Shui-bian falls, Taiwan falls!”

Meanwhile, the two elections at the beginning of the year produced two new leaders, Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. So far both have failed to meet the expecations their supporters had for them. Ma Ying-jeou still can’t decide how to position himself. Does he want to stand on the front line, or hide out in the rear echelon? Does he want to be both president and party chairman, or does he feel the two roles should be filled by two different people? Does he want to remain an idol to his fans, or does he want to get his hands dirty in the political mud? He seems forever paralyzed by his own media image. When it comes to real world leadership, he often finds himself at a complete loss. As for Tsai Ing-wen, she attempted to initiate a “post-Chen Shui-bian era,” only to find herself marginalized by the Green Camp and the DPP. Her hopes of transforming the Democratic Progressive Party have been dashed.

The year 2008 was an historic opportunity for reflection about the ROC’s democracy. This golden opportunity is in danger of being frittered away. Ma Ying-jeou is unable to inspire the nation. Tsai Ing-wen is unable to change the DPP. The entire island remains caught in the maze of the Chen corruption case. A minority of Chen Shui-bian supporters have paralyzed the island, and are choking the life out of her.

Faced with such a situation, the public can not help wondering. What, if anything, can save democracy and constitutional government? America’s has elected a black man president. India on the other hand, has been unable to change its caste system. Both are democracies. So why are the results so different?

Can the second change in ruling parties in 2008 save the ROC’s democracy and constitutional government? Can the prosecution of the Chen corruption case save the ROC’s democracy and constitutional government? And if not, what can?

台灣二○○八：從二次政黨輪替到扁案起訴
【聯合報社論╱社論】
2008.12.30 02:53 am

二○○八年的台灣內部政治，從年初「二次政黨輪替」，走到年底一二一二扁案大起訴；二○○八年的兩岸關係，則是從年初「入聯公投」，走到年底大三通。

這兩條軸線，一條台灣內部政治，一條兩岸關係，相激相盪，互為條件，互為表裡。本文先論台灣內部政治一線，兩岸關係留待另文。

這 番「二次政黨輪替」，可謂是國家整體價值體系的全面取捨。就人物風格言，取馬英九，捨陳水扁；就國家路線言，取不統、不獨、不武，捨台獨建國；就憲政架構 言，取護憲、行憲、修憲，捨正名制憲；就兩岸關係言，取大三通，捨尖銳對立；就社會號召言，取族群融合，捨撕裂社會；就政風品操言，取清廉，捨貪腐。甚至 就官員品類言，亦是對杜正勝、莊國榮、葉盛茂之輩的否決，而期待新典型出現……。

因而，這不是一般的「二次政黨輪替」，而是國家整體價值 體系的大取捨、大換置，與大抉擇。一一三席立委選舉，國民黨贏得八十二席，逾三分之二；泛藍得八十六席，逾四分之三。總統選舉，馬英九得票率為五十八%， 得票數七六五萬。這些皆顯示選民對國家價值體系的大取捨、大換置與大抉擇。至於被陳水扁所挾持的民進黨，在立委選舉及總統大選皆遭大敗，正是因其台獨路線 及貪腐行徑受到選民的制裁；直至一二一二大起訴，則是將陳水扁的罪行交付司法審判。

其實，二○○八年的台灣，形同選民對解嚴後二十年來的 政經激盪，作出了總結性的反省與抉擇。李登輝與陳水扁，對於本土意識的鼓吹，確曾充實並鞏固了台灣的主體性；但由李登輝始作俑、再經陳水扁變本加厲的台獨 路線，撕裂社會、鎖國亂政，卻使國家社會創巨痛深。尤其，李的黑金，與扁的貪腐，更使政治體質沉淪敗壞。我們曾說，李陳二人也許帶領台灣過了河，卻上錯了 岸；選民遂在二○○八年為二十年來的扁李路線療傷止痛，並期待國家社會得以新生再造。尤其，在原本的想像與期待中，扁案起訴之時，即應是國家社會新生再造 之日。

但是，情勢的演變卻出乎想像與期待之外。年初的立委選舉及總統大選，可謂是選舉制度及選民對陳水扁與民進黨的政治制裁；年底的大起 訴，則是司法體制將對陳水扁的貪腐進行審判。但是，如今顯現的情勢卻是，選舉投票不能激濁揚清，司法似也不能澄明是非；陳水扁仍不認錯，四處呼號「政治迫 害」，而其支持者仍然主張「阿扁無罪」。這一股勢力的主軸論述是：「阿扁若倒，台灣就倒！」

相對而言，年初兩次大選後出現的兩位新領袖， 馬英九與蔡英文，卻迄今未能在各自的領域中，發揮其自我期許與受社會付託的角色與功能。馬英九迄今仍在「第一線／第二線」、「黨政同步／黨政分離」、「粉 絲偶像／戰場領袖」之間不知如何自我定位；似乎始終沉浸在他自成一格的思維與論述中，卻在實際的領導統御上往往不得要領，搔不著癢處。至於蔡英文，亦從朝 向「沒有陳水扁的時代」的道路中，被綠營與民進黨邊緣化及無意義化，民進黨的轉型再造亦已落空。

二○○八年原本存有台灣民主大反省、大轉型的歷史機遇，但此種期待卻有失落的危機。馬英九帶不動台灣，蔡英文改變不了民進黨；整個台灣遂仍陷於扁案的迷障之中。少數挺扁者，反而掐住了台灣的神經與命脈。

面對此情此境，人們不禁要問：民主憲政的最後救贖究竟是什麼？美國的民主，黑人當選了總統；印度的民主，卻不能改變種姓制度。同樣是民主，何以效應如此不同？

二○○八年，如果二次政黨輪替不能成為台灣民主憲政的救贖，年底的扁案起訴也不能成為台灣民主憲政的救贖，則台灣這個大難題的答案究竟是什麼？

Wearing a Helmet, Welcoming the Pandas

Wearing a Helmet, Welcoming the Pandas
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
December 29, 2008

Cross-strait links have been kicked off amidst an air of festivity. The KMT-CPC forum concluded with much to show. A pair of pandas from Sichuan named Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan are coming to Taiwan as ambassadors of peace. Yet at a time when the Taiwan Strait is filled with the atmosphere of reconciliation, President Ma Ying-jeou donned an army helmet while reviewing the troops during live-fire exercises.

President Ma said that cross-Strait relations may be improving, but that does not mean we no longer need a military capability. We still need to make military preparations and enhance up our military capabilities. We must not negotiate out of fear.

President Ma is not raining on everyones’ parade. He is merely reminding us that we must remain vigilant amidst peace. Indeed, the government must not reduce its military preparedness. Although the mainland has repeatedly stated that it desires a peaceful solution to the Taiwan problem, it has not changed its position on the use of force. The public must be aware of this, and remain cautious.

During decades of cross-Strait confrontation, the mainland’s policy toward Taiwan has gradually softened. Early rhetoric calling for a “Taiwan bloodbath” and “the liberation of Taiwan” has changed to “peaceful reunification and one country, two systems,” and to “maintaining the status quo,” and finally to implicit recognition of “One China, Different Interpretations.” This shows that the mainland authorities have adopted a calmer attitude. The “Anti-Secession Law” reserves the right to use of force against “de jure Taiwan independence.” Nevertheless the mainland ought to make clear that it will not use force against Taiwan, for at least three reasons.

One. Those who support and participate in the Taiwan independence movement are a minority. The vast majority of the public on Taiwan want peaceful coexistence. It is unfair for the mainland to intimidate everyone on Taiwan in response to the behavior of a small number of radical Taiwan independence advocates. It also runs counter to the mainland’s policy of “pinning its hopes on the people of Taiwan.”

Two. Modern weapons of mass destruction are extraordinarily destructive. If the mainland attacks Taiwan, it could turn Taiwan into a wilderness. Would the mainland really want such a result? People may disagree about how many died during the 228 Incident in 1947. But bad blood lingers 60 years later. If the mainland is determined to attack Taiwan, the result may be corpses everywhere. How will they deal with the aftermath? How will they answer to history?

Three. The mainland has always referred to the public on Taiwan as compatriots. What is the rationale behind using modern weapons to kill one’s fellow countrymen? Two decades after the Tiananmen incident, mainland officials still refuse to face the truth. One reason is they want to maintain social stability. The other is probably inner guilt. How can even one such mistake be allowed to occur on Taiwan?

Of these three reasons, we would like to place special emphasis on the third. On the 24th of this month, the United Daily News’ “Public Forum” published an editorial entitled “Three times Chiang Kai-shek prevented the the United States from using nuclear weapons against the Chinese mainland.” According to Chiang’s diary, the United States was secretly preparing to attack the Chinese mainland during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It was considering dropping atomic bombs. Chiang Kai-shek clearly expressed his opposition, and sought to dissuade or discourage advocates of such a move.

Ever since the Communist Party defeated Chiang Kai-shek and forced him to retreat to Taiwan, he thought of nothing but “retaking the mainland,” and “avenging a national humilation.” But the ROC’s military power was far from sufficient. Since the United States was willing to help, by using its bombs, in principle Chiang should have been pleased. He should have taken the easy way out. But Chiang Kai-shek was determined not to do so, and made this quite clear in his diary. A nuclear strike against the mainland “would have an adverse impact on the people.” Many who have read this article feel that the mainland authorities’ attitude toward Taiwan ought to be the same as Mr. Chiang’s. Only then can cross-Strait relations improve.

During the Spring and Autumn Period, warlords fought each other tooth and nail, year after year. Corpses filled the trenches. King Xiang of Wei asked Mencius, “How can we achieve peace?” Mencius replied, “By promoting unity.” King Xiang of Wei asked “But who can promote unity?” Mencius replied, “He who is unwilling to kill others can promote unity.”

During the ROC’s 2008 presidential election one of the primary planks in Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign platform was a peace agreement with the mainland. Following his election and inauguration he has continued to promote this proposal. This sort of unwillingness to kill others is the proper basis for cross-Strait interaction. A peace agreement offers people on both sides of the Strait the hope of peace. It offers a long-term framework for win/win cross-Strait interaction.

If the mainland relinquishes the use of force against Taiwan, that will help convince the public on Taiwan that the mainland has put humanism and human rights above political struggle. When the panda ambassadors for peace arrived on Taiwan, President Ma wore an army helmet and spoke of war and peace. The dramatic contrast reflects Taiwan’s hopes and fears for cross-Strait relations.

戴鋼盔迎貓熊的心情
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.12.29 03:01 am

兩岸大三通於喜氣洋溢中開航，國共論壇在豐收中落幕，四川一對貓熊以「和平大使」的身分來台灣「團圓」；際此兩岸和解氛圍瀰漫的時刻，馬英九總統戴上鋼盔，校閱國軍部隊實彈演習。

馬總統說：兩岸關係雖正逐漸改善，但不表示我們就不要武力；我們仍要做好建軍備戰的準備，不在恐懼中談判。

馬總統的這番話，想不是潑大家冷水，而是「居安思危」的應有之義。實際上，台灣的確不應鬆懈軍備，因為大陸雖一再聲言以和平方式解決台灣問題，但迄仍未改變「不排除使用武力」的說法。國人對這一點，理應有所認知，加以警惕。

兩岸對峙數十年來，大陸對台政策一步步往和緩的方向演進，從早期的「血洗台灣」、「解放台灣」到「和平統一，一國兩制」，以迄目前「維持現狀」的說詞，以 及對「一中各表」的默認，在在顯示大陸當局已漸走向理性。至於《反分裂國家法》所保留的動武條件，亦只是針對「法理台獨」。但是我們仍然認為，大陸應當明 言不對台灣動武，理由至少有三點：

第一、支持和從事台獨運動的人，畢竟是少數，絕大多數台灣民眾皆希望兩岸和平共處。大陸若因一小部分激進台獨者的行徑而對全體台灣人民恫嚇，這對他們是不公道的，也是與大陸自己所稱「寄希望於台灣人民」的政策相違背的。

第二、現代武器殺傷力特強，大陸如進攻台灣，可能使台灣變成廢墟荒原。這樣的一塊土地，難道是大陸想要的嗎？再說，一九四七年一次意外的「二二八事件」， 死亡人數尚眾說紛紜，而仇恨之結已六十年難解；若大陸立意攻台，結果或將是「屍橫遍野」，那將如何善後？又如何向歷史交代？

第三、大陸向來稱台灣人為同胞手足，是則哪裡有用現代武器殺戮自己「同胞」的道理？「六四事件」過了二十年，大陸官方到現在還不願說明真相，一則可能是顧及社會安定，另外恐怕也是內疚於心吧？這樣的錯誤，一之為甚，豈可在台灣重演？

這三點理由，我們願特別強調第三點。本月廿四日本報《民意論壇》有一篇〈蔣介石三次阻美用核武攻擊大陸〉的評述，根據蔣的日記，美國曾在韓戰、越戰及台灣私下準備進攻大陸時，都曾考慮向中國投擲核子彈。對此，蔣介石明確表示反對，並一一設法勸阻或打消。

蔣介石自從敗於共產黨退守台灣，無時無刻不以「反攻大陸」、「雪恥復國」為念。但台灣自身軍力遠遠不足，既有美國拔「彈」相助，理應喜出望外、因利乘便才 對。但蔣介石堅決不為，並在日記中明言，核襲大陸「對於民心將有不利之影響」。很多閱過此文的讀者都認為，大陸對台灣的態度，應向蔣先生看齊，庶幾兩岸關 係能有進一步發展的空間。

春秋戰國時期，群雄分據，刀兵連年，人民輾轉於溝壑，梁襄王會孟子，兩人有一段對話：王：「天下惡乎定？」孟：「定於一。」王：「孰能一之？」孟：「不嗜殺人者能一之。」

二○○八年台灣大選，馬英九主要政見之一即是與大陸簽署《和平協議》，他當選就職後並繼續推動，這正是將「不嗜殺人」作為兩岸互動的基本準則。《和平協議》倘能呈現兩岸民眾共同的和平期望，自能對兩岸的雙贏提供可大可久的互動架構。

總之，大陸放棄對台用武，才能使台灣人民相信大陸確是把人道、人權置於政治紛爭之上。當貓熊和平大使來台之際，馬總統戴著鋼盔談和戰之道；此種強烈對比反差的場景，反映了台灣對兩岸關係的既期待、又怕受傷害。

Wearing a Helmet, Welcoming the Pandas

Wearing a Helmet, Welcoming the Pandas
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
December 29, 2008

Cross-strait links have been kicked off amidst an air of festivity. The KMT-CPC forum concluded with much to show. A pair of pandas from Sichuan named Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan are coming to Taiwan as ambassadors of peace. Yet at a time when the Taiwan Strait is filled with the atmosphere of reconciliation, President Ma Ying-jeou donned an army helmet while reviewing the troops during live-fire exercises.

President Ma said that cross-Strait relations may be improving, but that does not mean we no longer need a military capability. We still need to make military preparations and enhance up our military capabilities. We must not negotiate out of fear.

President Ma is not raining on everyones’ parade. He is merely reminding us that we must remain vigilant amidst peace. Indeed, the government must not reduce its military preparedness. Although the mainland has repeatedly stated that it desires a peaceful solution to the Taiwan problem, it has not changed its position on the use of force. The public must be aware of this, and remain cautious.

During decades of cross-Strait confrontation, the mainland’s policy toward Taiwan has gradually softened. Early rhetoric calling for a “Taiwan bloodbath” and “the liberation of Taiwan” has changed to “peaceful reunification and one country, two systems,” and to “maintaining the status quo,” and finally to implicit recognition of “One China, Different Interpretations.” This shows that the mainland authorities have adopted a calmer attitude. The “Anti-Secession Law” reserves the right to use of force against “de jure Taiwan independence.” Nevertheless the mainland ought to make clear that it will not use force against Taiwan, for at least three reasons.

One. Those who support and participate in the Taiwan independence movement are a minority. The vast majority of the public on Taiwan want peaceful coexistence. It is unfair for the mainland to intimidate everyone on Taiwan in response to the behavior of a small number of radical Taiwan independence advocates. It also runs counter to the mainland’s policy of “pinning its hopes on the people of Taiwan.”

Two. Modern weapons of mass destruction are extraordinarily destructive. If the mainland attacks Taiwan, it could turn Taiwan into a wilderness. Would the mainland really want such a result? People may disagree about how many died during the 228 Incident in 1947. But bad blood lingers 60 years later. If the mainland is determined to attack Taiwan, the result may be corpses everywhere. How will they deal with the aftermath? How will they answer to history?

Three. The mainland has always referred to the public on Taiwan as compatriots. What is the rationale behind using modern weapons to kill one’s fellow countrymen? Two decades after the Tiananmen incident, mainland officials still refuse to face the truth. One reason is they want to maintain social stability. The other is probably inner guilt. How can even one such mistake be allowed to occur on Taiwan?

Of these three reasons, we would like to place special emphasis on the third. On the 24th of this month, the United Daily News’ “Public Forum” published an editorial entitled “Three times Chiang Kai-shek prevented the the United States from using nuclear weapons against the Chinese mainland.” According to Chiang’s diary, the United States was secretly preparing to attack the Chinese mainland during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It was considering dropping atomic bombs. Chiang Kai-shek clearly expressed his opposition, and sought to dissuade or discourage advocates of such a move.

Ever since the Communist Party defeated Chiang Kai-shek and forced him to retreat to Taiwan, he thought of nothing but “retaking the mainland,” and “avenging a national humilation.” But the ROC’s military power was far from sufficient. Since the United States was willing to help, by using its bombs, in principle Chiang should have been pleased. He should have taken the easy way out. But Chiang Kai-shek was determined not to do so, and made this quite clear in his diary. A nuclear strike against the mainland “would have an adverse impact on the people.” Many who have read this article feel that the mainland authorities’ attitude toward Taiwan ought to be the same as Mr. Chiang’s. Only then can cross-Strait relations improve.

During the Spring and Autumn Period, warlords fought each other tooth and nail, year after year. Corpses filled the trenches. King Xiang of Wei asked Mencius, “How can we achieve peace?” Mencius replied, “By promoting unity.” King Xiang of Wei asked “But who can promote unity?” Mencius replied, “He who is unwilling to kill others can promote unity.”

During the ROC’s 2008 presidential election one of the primary planks in Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign platform was a peace agreement with the mainland. Following his election and inauguration he has continued to promote this proposal. This sort of unwillingness to kill others is the proper basis for cross-Strait interaction. A peace agreement offers people on both sides of the Strait the hope of peace. It offers a long-term framework for win/win cross-Strait interaction.

If the mainland relinquishes the use of force against Taiwan, that will help convince the public on Taiwan that the mainland has put humanism and human rights above political struggle. When the panda ambassadors for peace arrived on Taiwan, President Ma wore an army helmet and spoke of war and peace. The dramatic contrast reflects Taiwan’s hopes and fears for cross-Strait relations.

戴鋼盔迎貓熊的心情
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.12.29 03:01 am

兩岸大三通於喜氣洋溢中開航，國共論壇在豐收中落幕，四川一對貓熊以「和平大使」的身分來台灣「團圓」；際此兩岸和解氛圍瀰漫的時刻，馬英九總統戴上鋼盔，校閱國軍部隊實彈演習。

馬總統說：兩岸關係雖正逐漸改善，但不表示我們就不要武力；我們仍要做好建軍備戰的準備，不在恐懼中談判。

馬總統的這番話，想不是潑大家冷水，而是「居安思危」的應有之義。實際上，台灣的確不應鬆懈軍備，因為大陸雖一再聲言以和平方式解決台灣問題，但迄仍未改變「不排除使用武力」的說法。國人對這一點，理應有所認知，加以警惕。

兩岸對峙數十年來，大陸對台政策一步步往和緩的方向演進，從早期的「血洗台灣」、「解放台灣」到「和平統一，一國兩制」，以迄目前「維持現狀」的說詞，以 及對「一中各表」的默認，在在顯示大陸當局已漸走向理性。至於《反分裂國家法》所保留的動武條件，亦只是針對「法理台獨」。但是我們仍然認為，大陸應當明 言不對台灣動武，理由至少有三點：

第一、支持和從事台獨運動的人，畢竟是少數，絕大多數台灣民眾皆希望兩岸和平共處。大陸若因一小部分激進台獨者的行徑而對全體台灣人民恫嚇，這對他們是不公道的，也是與大陸自己所稱「寄希望於台灣人民」的政策相違背的。

第二、現代武器殺傷力特強，大陸如進攻台灣，可能使台灣變成廢墟荒原。這樣的一塊土地，難道是大陸想要的嗎？再說，一九四七年一次意外的「二二八事件」， 死亡人數尚眾說紛紜，而仇恨之結已六十年難解；若大陸立意攻台，結果或將是「屍橫遍野」，那將如何善後？又如何向歷史交代？

第三、大陸向來稱台灣人為同胞手足，是則哪裡有用現代武器殺戮自己「同胞」的道理？「六四事件」過了二十年，大陸官方到現在還不願說明真相，一則可能是顧及社會安定，另外恐怕也是內疚於心吧？這樣的錯誤，一之為甚，豈可在台灣重演？

這三點理由，我們願特別強調第三點。本月廿四日本報《民意論壇》有一篇〈蔣介石三次阻美用核武攻擊大陸〉的評述，根據蔣的日記，美國曾在韓戰、越戰及台灣私下準備進攻大陸時，都曾考慮向中國投擲核子彈。對此，蔣介石明確表示反對，並一一設法勸阻或打消。

蔣介石自從敗於共產黨退守台灣，無時無刻不以「反攻大陸」、「雪恥復國」為念。但台灣自身軍力遠遠不足，既有美國拔「彈」相助，理應喜出望外、因利乘便才 對。但蔣介石堅決不為，並在日記中明言，核襲大陸「對於民心將有不利之影響」。很多閱過此文的讀者都認為，大陸對台灣的態度，應向蔣先生看齊，庶幾兩岸關 係能有進一步發展的空間。

春秋戰國時期，群雄分據，刀兵連年，人民輾轉於溝壑，梁襄王會孟子，兩人有一段對話：王：「天下惡乎定？」孟：「定於一。」王：「孰能一之？」孟：「不嗜殺人者能一之。」

二○○八年台灣大選，馬英九主要政見之一即是與大陸簽署《和平協議》，他當選就職後並繼續推動，這正是將「不嗜殺人」作為兩岸互動的基本準則。《和平協議》倘能呈現兩岸民眾共同的和平期望，自能對兩岸的雙贏提供可大可久的互動架構。

總之，大陸放棄對台用武，才能使台灣人民相信大陸確是把人道、人權置於政治紛爭之上。當貓熊和平大使來台之際，馬總統戴著鋼盔談和戰之道；此種強烈對比反差的場景，反映了台灣對兩岸關係的既期待、又怕受傷害。

A Financial Supervisory Crisis

A Financial Supervisory Crisis
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2008

Just exactly who is responsible for the financial crisis of the century? Nobel laureate in economics history Joseph E. Stiglitz says the crisis is the result of a series of policy failures. He sternly criticized former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan’s laissez-faire policies for creating a major catastrophe. He said that when Greenspan lowered interest rates a few years ago, capital flooded the market. Coupled with a lack of market standards, this eventually led to the collapse of financial markets. He believes the financial crisis is forcing many nations’ financial supervisory agencies to re-examine their position regarding financial liberalization.

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, Greenspan has been roundly criticized. The criticisms have fallen into two categories. One. Greenspan’s last wave of rate cuts lowered Interest rates too far, and for too long. It planted the seeds of the housing market bubble and inflation. Two. The Federal Reserve Bank adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward financial markets. It failed to fulfill the role of financial supervisor. It allow investment banks to take risks, and commercial banks to make housing loans to consumers unable to pay them back.

Faced with criticism, Greenspan, who believes in liberalism, came to his own defense. He said it was unfair to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking. But in late October of this year, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing, he admitted for the first time that he made a mistake. He said he was wrong to have assumed that, based on self-interest, banks would do all they could to protect the rights and interests of shareholders. He said he was wrong to have opposed more stringent controls on derivatives.

Investment bank Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15. The U.S. government launched an unprecedented relief program amounting to 700 billion USD, 250 billion of which will prop up the bank, by providing it with additional capital. But by mid-November, the tense situation in financial markets still had not eased. The situation remains worrisome. Stiglitz does not believe these programs can alleviate the situation in a timely manner. It’s all a matter of confidence. In the final analysis, the basic mistake is to believe that “the market can regulate itself, and that the government’s role ought to be reduced to a minimum.”

The financial crisis was caused by the U.S. housing market bubble. It spread to the banking system, and caused the stock market to crash. Not only did banks distrust other banks, banks and their customers were also forced to re-examine their relationship. Millions in the United States have had their homes repossessed. Countless more workers are now unemployed. No one expected such tragic consequences Even Greenspan was forced to admit his mistakes. But for others, what really matters, is how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Look at the United States. Now look at the Republic of China. Before and after the change in ruling parties, financial liberalization and deregulation have been an endlessly repeated mantra. But our financial markets have never been either sufficiently open, or sufficiently disciplined. The Ma administration began repeating the mantra over a decade ago. He spoke of plans for an Asian-Pacific financial center, and advocated liberalization and deregulation. But in the eyes of foreign banks, our level of financial liberalization was a far cry from that of Europe and the United States. Leave aside the question of whether agencies responsible for financial supervision neglected their duties. Our financial industry’s compliance with the law is also a far cry from those in Europe and the United States.

Take one of the most sensitive issues, money-laundering controls, for example. The ROC has long been diligent in combatting international money-laundering. But when the Chen family money-laundering scandals erupted, many heavyweight financial holding company bosses were implicated. Some confessed that they helped the Chen family launder both NT dollars and US dollars through dummy overseas accounts. Some helped the Chen family move 740 million NT in cash out of their bank vaults. These are not things bankers normally do. Frankly, without such experts advising and assisting the Chen family, the Chen family would never have been able to launder several billion dollars in money by itself.

For an banker to engage in money-laundering is a serious matter. Not only would their integrity be brought into question, they would face criminal charges. But on Taiwan, many bankers involved in money-laundering continued to serve as board chairmen or general managers. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions passively waited for prosecutors to investigate. So far they have neither attempted to understand nor to prosecute these crimes. Perhaps these agencies’ tacit approval is rooted in other considerations. But the bottom line is these agencies are passively abetting these bankers’ money-laundering practices.

Taiwan is dreaming if it expects to become an Asian-Pacific financial center amidst the current financial crisis. Taiwan’s bankers have shown no intention of complying with even the spirit of the law. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions have done absolutely nothing. Under such circumstances, our financial industry will find it hard to rid itself of its image as a notorious money-laundering center. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions had better understand they are responsible for these consequences.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.12.26
金融監理的放任危機
中時社論

百年罕見的金融大海嘯究竟是誰的錯？諾貝爾經濟獎得主史迪格里茲（Joseph E. Stiglitz）撰文指出，這是一系列政策失誤造成，他並嚴詞批評美國前聯準會主席葛林史班的自由放任政策釀成大禍。他認為葛老在前幾年把利率降至最 低，資金氾濫加上對市場缺乏規範，最後導致金融市場崩盤，而這場金融大海嘯也讓各國金融監理機關對金融自由化有了新的反省與檢討。

金融海嘯爆發以來，葛老飽受批評。外界的批評主要有兩方面，首先，葛老在上一波不景氣的降息政策，利率降得太低且持續太久，埋下日後房市泡沫與通膨的種 子；其次，聯準會對金融市場採取放任態度，未能扮演好金融監督者的角色，讓投資銀行鋌而走險，商業銀行把房屋貸款借給無力償還的消費者。

面對外界批評，信仰自由主義的葛老仍不斷為自己辯駁，指多數人以後見之明批評他並不公平。不過，今年十月底在美國眾議院的聽證會上，他首度坦承錯誤。他說，他犯了一個錯，誤以為銀行基於自利的原則會盡一切力量保護股東權益，因而不認同對衍生金融商品採取較嚴厲的管理。

投資銀行雷曼兄弟於九月十五日宣告破產之後，美國政府推出空前的七千億美元紓困方案，其中二千五百億美元將挹注岌岌可危的銀行以補足其資本結構，但金融市 場緊張的情勢到了十一月中旬仍未緩解，情況令人憂心。史迪格里茲認為這些方案未能適時發揮功效，完全是信心問題，所有錯誤歸根究柢就是「相信市場可以自我 調整，政府的角色可以降至最低。」

這次金融危機起因於美國房市泡沫，擴散至銀行體系、股市的大崩盤，不僅銀行與銀行之間互不信任，銀行與客戶之間的關係亦重新檢視，美國數百萬人房子被查 封，更有數不清的勞工失業。這樣的悲慘後果，不僅事先無人料到，精明的葛老也不得不認錯。不過，對其他人而言，更重要的是，未來如何避免重蹈覆轍。

看看美國，再想想台灣。政權輪替前後，台灣的金融自由化與大鬆綁的口號從來沒有停止過，不過，我們的金融市場一直處於開放不夠，紀律也不足的情況。馬政府 上台後，延續十多年前的口號，重新喊出亞太金融中心的計畫，標榜自由化與大鬆綁。在外商銀行的眼中，我們的金融自由化程度與歐美的金融中心，還差了一大 截。不過，從金融監理的角度，姑且先不論主管機關是否把金融監理當一回事，實務上，我們的金融業者對於法律的遵守，與歐美國家相比也有一大段距離。

以最敏感的洗錢防制為例，台灣向來在國際間反洗錢方面有良好的表現，不過，最近爆發的扁家洗錢案為例，多家重量級金控大老闆或負責人捲入其中，有人承認協 助將扁家的新台幣、美鈔透過人頭匯出海外，有人協助從銀行保管室搬出七億四千萬元現金，這些行為均違背了正常銀行家該做的事。坦白說，如果沒有這些行家獻 策協助扁家洗錢，光是扁一家人恐怕也無法完成龐大的數十億元洗錢案。

在國外，如果有銀行家涉入洗錢案，這是非常嚴重的事，不僅道德誠信方面受到大眾質疑，還有刑事責任；在台灣，許多涉入洗錢的銀行家仍照常擔任董事長或總經 理，金融監理機關除了被動等待檢調的調查，迄今未採取任何行動進行了解與處置，或許主管機關的默許可能另有特殊的考量，但如此的不作為無異縱容銀行家可以 從事這些不尋常的洗錢行為。

在這波金融大海嘯衝擊下，台灣要成為亞太金融中心，恐怕更是一個遙不可及的夢想，不過，如果台灣的銀行家連最基本遵守法令精神都蕩然無存，金融監理機關對 於這些缺乏金融紀律金融業負責人亦放任不管，那麼，台灣的金融業恐怕很難在國際上擺脫洗錢的臭名。金融監理機關這樣的放任政策會引發什麼後果，最好先盤算 清楚。

A Financial Supervisory Crisis

A Financial Supervisory Crisis
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2008

Just exactly who is responsible for the financial crisis of the century? Nobel laureate in economics history Joseph E. Stiglitz says the crisis is the result of a series of policy failures. He sternly criticized former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan’s laissez-faire policies for creating a major catastrophe. He said that when Greenspan lowered interest rates a few years ago, capital flooded the market. Coupled with a lack of market standards, this eventually led to the collapse of financial markets. He believes the financial crisis is forcing many nations’ financial supervisory agencies to re-examine their position regarding financial liberalization.

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, Greenspan has been roundly criticized. The criticisms have fallen into two categories. One. Greenspan’s last wave of rate cuts lowered Interest rates too far, and for too long. It planted the seeds of the housing market bubble and inflation. Two. The Federal Reserve Bank adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward financial markets. It failed to fulfill the role of financial supervisor. It allow investment banks to take risks, and commercial banks to make housing loans to consumers unable to pay them back.

Faced with criticism, Greenspan, who believes in liberalism, came to his own defense. He said it was unfair to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking. But in late October of this year, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing, he admitted for the first time that he made a mistake. He said he was wrong to have assumed that, based on self-interest, banks would do all they could to protect the rights and interests of shareholders. He said he was wrong to have opposed more stringent controls on derivatives.

Investment bank Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15. The U.S. government launched an unprecedented relief program amounting to 700 billion USD, 250 billion of which will prop up the bank, by providing it with additional capital. But by mid-November, the tense situation in financial markets still had not eased. The situation remains worrisome. Stiglitz does not believe these programs can alleviate the situation in a timely manner. It’s all a matter of confidence. In the final analysis, the basic mistake is to believe that “the market can regulate itself, and that the government’s role ought to be reduced to a minimum.”

The financial crisis was caused by the U.S. housing market bubble. It spread to the banking system, and caused the stock market to crash. Not only did banks distrust other banks, banks and their customers were also forced to re-examine their relationship. Millions in the United States have had their homes repossessed. Countless more workers are now unemployed. No one expected such tragic consequences Even Greenspan was forced to admit his mistakes. But for others, what really matters, is how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Look at the United States. Now look at the Republic of China. Before and after the change in ruling parties, financial liberalization and deregulation have been an endlessly repeated mantra. But our financial markets have never been either sufficiently open, or sufficiently disciplined. The Ma administration began repeating the mantra over a decade ago. He spoke of plans for an Asian-Pacific financial center, and advocated liberalization and deregulation. But in the eyes of foreign banks, our level of financial liberalization was a far cry from that of Europe and the United States. Leave aside the question of whether agencies responsible for financial supervision neglected their duties. Our financial industry’s compliance with the law is also a far cry from those in Europe and the United States.

Take one of the most sensitive issues, money-laundering controls, for example. The ROC has long been diligent in combatting international money-laundering. But when the Chen family money-laundering scandals erupted, many heavyweight financial holding company bosses were implicated. Some confessed that they helped the Chen family launder both NT dollars and US dollars through dummy overseas accounts. Some helped the Chen family move 740 million NT in cash out of their bank vaults. These are not things bankers normally do. Frankly, without such experts advising and assisting the Chen family, the Chen family would never have been able to launder several billion dollars in money by itself.

For an banker to engage in money-laundering is a serious matter. Not only would their integrity be brought into question, they would face criminal charges. But on Taiwan, many bankers involved in money-laundering continued to serve as board chairmen or general managers. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions passively waited for prosecutors to investigate. So far they have neither attempted to understand nor to prosecute these crimes. Perhaps these agencies’ tacit approval is rooted in other considerations. But the bottom line is these agencies are passively abetting these bankers’ money-laundering practices.

Taiwan is dreaming if it expects to become an Asian-Pacific financial center amidst the current financial crisis. Taiwan’s bankers have shown no intention of complying with even the spirit of the law. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions have done absolutely nothing. Under such circumstances, our financial industry will find it hard to rid itself of its image as a notorious money-laundering center. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions had better understand they are responsible for these consequences.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.12.26
金融監理的放任危機
中時社論

百年罕見的金融大海嘯究竟是誰的錯？諾貝爾經濟獎得主史迪格里茲（Joseph E. Stiglitz）撰文指出，這是一系列政策失誤造成，他並嚴詞批評美國前聯準會主席葛林史班的自由放任政策釀成大禍。他認為葛老在前幾年把利率降至最 低，資金氾濫加上對市場缺乏規範，最後導致金融市場崩盤，而這場金融大海嘯也讓各國金融監理機關對金融自由化有了新的反省與檢討。

金融海嘯爆發以來，葛老飽受批評。外界的批評主要有兩方面，首先，葛老在上一波不景氣的降息政策，利率降得太低且持續太久，埋下日後房市泡沫與通膨的種 子；其次，聯準會對金融市場採取放任態度，未能扮演好金融監督者的角色，讓投資銀行鋌而走險，商業銀行把房屋貸款借給無力償還的消費者。

面對外界批評，信仰自由主義的葛老仍不斷為自己辯駁，指多數人以後見之明批評他並不公平。不過，今年十月底在美國眾議院的聽證會上，他首度坦承錯誤。他說，他犯了一個錯，誤以為銀行基於自利的原則會盡一切力量保護股東權益，因而不認同對衍生金融商品採取較嚴厲的管理。

投資銀行雷曼兄弟於九月十五日宣告破產之後，美國政府推出空前的七千億美元紓困方案，其中二千五百億美元將挹注岌岌可危的銀行以補足其資本結構，但金融市 場緊張的情勢到了十一月中旬仍未緩解，情況令人憂心。史迪格里茲認為這些方案未能適時發揮功效，完全是信心問題，所有錯誤歸根究柢就是「相信市場可以自我 調整，政府的角色可以降至最低。」

這次金融危機起因於美國房市泡沫，擴散至銀行體系、股市的大崩盤，不僅銀行與銀行之間互不信任，銀行與客戶之間的關係亦重新檢視，美國數百萬人房子被查 封，更有數不清的勞工失業。這樣的悲慘後果，不僅事先無人料到，精明的葛老也不得不認錯。不過，對其他人而言，更重要的是，未來如何避免重蹈覆轍。

看看美國，再想想台灣。政權輪替前後，台灣的金融自由化與大鬆綁的口號從來沒有停止過，不過，我們的金融市場一直處於開放不夠，紀律也不足的情況。馬政府 上台後，延續十多年前的口號，重新喊出亞太金融中心的計畫，標榜自由化與大鬆綁。在外商銀行的眼中，我們的金融自由化程度與歐美的金融中心，還差了一大 截。不過，從金融監理的角度，姑且先不論主管機關是否把金融監理當一回事，實務上，我們的金融業者對於法律的遵守，與歐美國家相比也有一大段距離。

以最敏感的洗錢防制為例，台灣向來在國際間反洗錢方面有良好的表現，不過，最近爆發的扁家洗錢案為例，多家重量級金控大老闆或負責人捲入其中，有人承認協 助將扁家的新台幣、美鈔透過人頭匯出海外，有人協助從銀行保管室搬出七億四千萬元現金，這些行為均違背了正常銀行家該做的事。坦白說，如果沒有這些行家獻 策協助扁家洗錢，光是扁一家人恐怕也無法完成龐大的數十億元洗錢案。

在國外，如果有銀行家涉入洗錢案，這是非常嚴重的事，不僅道德誠信方面受到大眾質疑，還有刑事責任；在台灣，許多涉入洗錢的銀行家仍照常擔任董事長或總經 理，金融監理機關除了被動等待檢調的調查，迄今未採取任何行動進行了解與處置，或許主管機關的默許可能另有特殊的考量，但如此的不作為無異縱容銀行家可以 從事這些不尋常的洗錢行為。

在這波金融大海嘯衝擊下，台灣要成為亞太金融中心，恐怕更是一個遙不可及的夢想，不過，如果台灣的銀行家連最基本遵守法令精神都蕩然無存，金融監理機關對 於這些缺乏金融紀律金融業負責人亦放任不管，那麼，台灣的金融業恐怕很難在國際上擺脫洗錢的臭名。金融監理機關這樣的放任政策會引發什麼後果，最好先盤算 清楚。

How Will the Justice System Eliminate Political Influence?

How Will the Justice System Eliminate Political Influence?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2008

The Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering case is under attack from both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp. Yesterday judge Chou Chan-chun publicly stated that he need not try the Chen case. He said that if Tsai Shou-hsiung, the judge in Wu Shu-chen’s State Affairs Fund case, would be willing to take over before the trial begins, he would be happy to hand the four Chen family scandals over to him. The embarrassing thing is that Tsai Shou-hsiung, fearing he would be accused of political interference, has no intention of taking sole responsibility for the Chen family corruption cases. The first problem the Taipei District Court faces is, who is going to try the case?

Is Chou Chan-chun Blue or Green? After he released Ah-Bian for the second time, the Blue Camp has been wondering. A number of legislators discovered that among the 37 cases Chou Chan-chun tried in recent years, only two defendants were not detained. The other 35 defendants were. The legislators had to laugh. Chou has never been someone who places great importance on human rights when prosecuting suspects. Even more disturbingly, the Blue Camp learned that during the presidential election Chou Chan-chun canvassed votes for Chen Shui-bian, and privately confided that had Ma Ying-jeou wound up in his courtroom during the Discretionary Fund case, Chou “would undoubtedly have sentenced him (Ma) to 10 years!” In the eyes of the Blue Camp, and even the public, Chou Chan-chun’s words and deeds have left the impression that his political loyalties might determine his legal judgments.

Of course, whether Chou Chan-chun’s political affiliation would actually affect his court decisions must be verified. When prosecutor Liu Chen-wu openly campaigned for Ah-Bian, he was harshly criticized. Chou Chan-chun did not campaign openly. He merely canvassed votes in private. Other members of the judiciary have undoubtedly canvassed privately for Ma Ying-jeou. As long as they do not campaign openly, that does not constitute a breach of ethics for judges. Did he in fact say that he would have sentenced Ma to 10 years? Because we never heard his remark in context, it is hard to say whether he is Blue or Green. For example, he might merely be someone who demands impeccable integrity in public officials. If he sentenced Ma to 10 years, he might have sentenced Ah-Bian to an unexpectedly long term. The Blue Camp’s criticism of him is a form of pressure. The Green Camp’s cheering him on, isn’t necessarily to his advantage. Judges perceived as ideologically biased, are likely to find their careers limited. Even if he believes himself just, any verdict he renders will be in doubt. This is without question a major blow to the credibility of the justice system.

Chou Chan-chun has yet to actually preside over Ah-Bian’s case. People from all walks of life have speculated about his words and deeds, and attempted to read his thoughts. This may not be fair. But he is the trial judge in a corruption case involving a former head of state, one that has attracted the attention of the nation, and even the world. It was inevitable that he would be placed under a microscope and subject to detailed scrutiny. Such criticisms of Chou Chan-chun have precedents. Public Prosecutor Chang Hsi-huai investigated and prosecuted Wu Shu-chen for the State Affairs Fund case. He was harassed by the Green Camp wherever he went. Public officials, from the central to local government level, as well as Pan Green pressure groups and TV talk show hosts mobilized, en masse. He was even accused of “treason” for participating in cross-Strait professional exchanges. He was harassed so relentlessly he lost his composure and broke down in tears. Despite the absence of court appearances, Chou Chan-chun is in a much better situation.

The sums of money involved in the Chen family corruption scandal are mind-boggling. The trail the money left is as tangled as a spider web. The case involves every member of the First Family. The Green Camp is adept at manipulating the emotions of their followers, as a way of applying political pressure. Politics will inevitably interfere with court cases. Anyone who might threaten the Chen family, will be subjected to all manner of harassment. Anyone who might be helpful to the Chen family, will win their applause.

The Blue Camp has circled the Chen family scandal for three or four years. It has not mobilized its forces to the same extent as the Green Camp, but it feels just as strongly about such matters. During the Special Investigation Unit’s investigation of the Chen family scandal, Blue Camp legislators and TV talk show hosts questioned the Special Investigation Unit’s excessive deference toward Ah-Bian and other concerned parties. When the Special Investigation Unit began its first wave of prosecutions, they suspected the Special Investigation Unit of sloppiness, and wondered whether it was deliberately leaving defendants loopholes through which they could escape. They have never trusted Chou Chan-chun.

Both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp have critiqued the judicial system’s handling of these cases, based on their own political stances. They have applied pressure, hoping to influence the outcome of the cases. These are all abberations from the norm. But they are also expressions of free speech, which a democratic society cannot prohibit. When independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald investigated U.S. President Bill Clinton’s Monicagate and Whitewater cases, his impartiality was questioned. Many dismissed him as a “Republican.” Fitzgerald was indeed a Republican. But if a Democratic president is involved in a scandal or corruption, who says a Republican cannot investigate him?

For a judge, impartiality and independence are fundamental. Is Chou Chan-chun a reformist, or a hatchetman? People will draw their own conclusions. From the very beginning, the Chen corruption case has been dogged by political interference. Prosecutors and judges have hobnobbed with politicians. The judicial system needs to do some serious soul-searching, and figure out how to eliminate political influence from the trial process.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.12.25
司法究竟該如何排除政治干擾
中時社論

扁 案在藍綠夾擊下，周占春法官日昨公開表示，他不是非審扁案不可，如果前審吳淑珍國務機要費案的法官蔡守訓願意，他很樂意將扁家四大弊案，全部併案移送蔡守 訓。尷尬的是，或許是畏懼政治干擾，連蔡守訓都無意承攬全部的扁家弊案。扁案偵結，台北地方法院碰到的第一個難題竟是：到底由誰承審？

周 占春到底是藍是綠？從他二度釋扁以來，一直備受藍營質疑，立委找出周占春近年承審的卅七個案件，只有兩件未押，其他卅五件都裁定羈押，譏笑周根本不是重視 司法人權的人；更麻煩的是，藍營還找得出來周占春在總統大選時為陳水扁拉票，馬英九特別費案在司法審理程序時周竟私下表示，此案若落到他手中，「一定判他 （馬）十年！」周占春的言行在藍營，甚至在部分民眾眼中，已形成立場可能左右判決之印象。

不過，周占春「私下」的政治言行，是否真正影響 他專業的司法判決，還是要實證檢驗，比方說，當年檢察官劉承武公然為扁站台輔選，就被嚴重質疑，但周並未公開站台，只是私下拉票，相信司法界同樣有私下為 馬拉票者，只要不是公開站台，就無違司法官的專業規範！至於他到底有沒有說過要判馬十年之事？因為沒聽到周的前言後語，也很難以此定論其藍綠，比方說，他 可能是對清廉非常堅持之人，對馬都要判十年，若以此標準問他對扁案可能判幾年，他的答案也可能出乎意外的重。藍營批評他，對周是壓力；綠營褒揚他，對他也 未必有利。政治立場被「鎖定」的法官，除非有相當定力，其司法專業空間難免就被限縮，即使他自信公正，但任何判決結果都會遭懷疑，這對司法的威信無疑是最 大打擊。

對周占春而言，他還未開始真正審理扁案，各界即以他過去言行或交往對象，揣測其心證，未盡公平；但是，身為舉國、甚至世界矚目的 元首弊案承審法官，難免遭到質疑與非議，周占春被批評，還有過去的言行為憑；對比當年偵辦吳淑珍國務機要費案的公訴檢察官張熙懷，遭到綠營鋪天蓋地般圍 剿，從中央到地方公職，從各類綠營社團到電視名嘴，全面發動，連他因為兩岸司法交流赴大陸，都被批評為「叛國」，終至落淚，情緒失控，甚至缺席法庭的情 境，周占春的處境其實好多了。

扁家弊案所涉金額龐大到難以想像，金流脈絡猶如蜘蛛網般複雜，更攸關前第一家庭的全體成員，以綠營慣於操作群眾情緒，且以此作為政治施壓手段，無可避免地讓政治力插手司法案件，對扁家可能不利者，無所不用其極地圍剿，對扁家可能有利者，則稱頌喝采。

綠 營如此，藍營與扁家弊案周旋三、四年，儘管動員能量沒有綠營強，但愛之欲其生、恨之欲其死，幾無二致。特偵組偵辦扁家弊案過程中，藍營部分立委到電視名 嘴，一而再、再而三質疑特偵組辦案對扁過分禮遇，對關係人過分禮遇，待特偵組第一波偵結起訴，又懷疑特偵組急乎乎起訴，是否故意留下漏洞？乃至對周占春的 審理，始終不信任。

不論藍的、綠的，對司法偵辦審理中的案件，以自己所愛的立場評論、施壓，甚至希望藉此影響案件進行的方向，這些都是不 正常的現象，但卻都是民主社會沒辦法禁絕的言論自由。就像美國獨立檢察官費茲傑羅，調查美國總統柯林頓所涉及的緋聞案、白水案時，同樣遭到輿論全面性的質 疑，直指他根本就是「共和黨」，費茲傑羅確實是共和黨，但若民主黨的總統涉入醜聞或弊案，誰曰不宜調查？

作為司法官，公正、獨立辦案乃是基本信條，周占春在司法界到底是「改革派」，還是「立場派」，自有公評；但扁案從調查伊始即無從逃脫於政治干擾，甚至從檢察官到法官都無可避免地被揭露曾與政治人物過從甚密，司法界或許也該更嚴格地反省：司法究竟該如何完全排除政治干擾？

How Will the Justice System Eliminate Political Influence?

How Will the Justice System Eliminate Political Influence?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2008

The Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering case is under attack from both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp. Yesterday judge Chou Chan-chun publicly stated that he need not try the Chen case. He said that if Tsai Shou-hsiung, the judge in Wu Shu-chen’s State Affairs Fund case, would be willing to take over before the trial begins, he would be happy to hand the four Chen family scandals over to him. The embarrassing thing is that Tsai Shou-hsiung, fearing he would be accused of political interference, has no intention of taking sole responsibility for the Chen family corruption cases. The first problem the Taipei District Court faces is, who is going to try the case?

Is Chou Chan-chun Blue or Green? After he released Ah-Bian for the second time, the Blue Camp has been wondering. A number of legislators discovered that among the 37 cases Chou Chan-chun tried in recent years, only two defendants were not detained. The other 35 defendants were. The legislators had to laugh. Chou has never been someone who places great importance on human rights when prosecuting suspects. Even more disturbingly, the Blue Camp learned that during the presidential election Chou Chan-chun canvassed votes for Chen Shui-bian, and privately confided that had Ma Ying-jeou wound up in his courtroom during the Discretionary Fund case, Chou “would undoubtedly have sentenced him (Ma) to 10 years!” In the eyes of the Blue Camp, and even the public, Chou Chan-chun’s words and deeds have left the impression that his political loyalties might determine his legal judgments.

Of course, whether Chou Chan-chun’s political affiliation would actually affect his court decisions must be verified. When prosecutor Liu Chen-wu openly campaigned for Ah-Bian, he was harshly criticized. Chou Chan-chun did not campaign openly. He merely canvassed votes in private. Other members of the judiciary have undoubtedly canvassed privately for Ma Ying-jeou. As long as they do not campaign openly, that does not constitute a breach of ethics for judges. Did he in fact say that he would have sentenced Ma to 10 years? Because we never heard his remark in context, it is hard to say whether he is Blue or Green. For example, he might merely be someone who demands impeccable integrity in public officials. If he sentenced Ma to 10 years, he might have sentenced Ah-Bian to an unexpectedly long term. The Blue Camp’s criticism of him is a form of pressure. The Green Camp’s cheering him on, isn’t necessarily to his advantage. Judges perceived as ideologically biased, are likely to find their careers limited. Even if he believes himself just, any verdict he renders will be in doubt. This is without question a major blow to the credibility of the justice system.

Chou Chan-chun has yet to actually preside over Ah-Bian’s case. People from all walks of life have speculated about his words and deeds, and attempted to read his thoughts. This may not be fair. But he is the trial judge in a corruption case involving a former head of state, one that has attracted the attention of the nation, and even the world. It was inevitable that he would be placed under a microscope and subject to detailed scrutiny. Such criticisms of Chou Chan-chun have precedents. Public Prosecutor Chang Hsi-huai investigated and prosecuted Wu Shu-chen for the State Affairs Fund case. He was harassed by the Green Camp wherever he went. Public officials, from the central to local government level, as well as Pan Green pressure groups and TV talk show hosts mobilized, en masse. He was even accused of “treason” for participating in cross-Strait professional exchanges. He was harassed so relentlessly he lost his composure and broke down in tears. Despite the absence of court appearances, Chou Chan-chun is in a much better situation.

The sums of money involved in the Chen family corruption scandal are mind-boggling. The trail the money left is as tangled as a spider web. The case involves every member of the First Family. The Green Camp is adept at manipulating the emotions of their followers, as a way of applying political pressure. Politics will inevitably interfere with court cases. Anyone who might threaten the Chen family, will be subjected to all manner of harassment. Anyone who might be helpful to the Chen family, will win their applause.

The Blue Camp has circled the Chen family scandal for three or four years. It has not mobilized its forces to the same extent as the Green Camp, but it feels just as strongly about such matters. During the Special Investigation Unit’s investigation of the Chen family scandal, Blue Camp legislators and TV talk show hosts questioned the Special Investigation Unit’s excessive deference toward Ah-Bian and other concerned parties. When the Special Investigation Unit began its first wave of prosecutions, they suspected the Special Investigation Unit of sloppiness, and wondered whether it was deliberately leaving defendants loopholes through which they could escape. They have never trusted Chou Chan-chun.

Both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp have critiqued the judicial system’s handling of these cases, based on their own political stances. They have applied pressure, hoping to influence the outcome of the cases. These are all abberations from the norm. But they are also expressions of free speech, which a democratic society cannot prohibit. When independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald investigated U.S. President Bill Clinton’s Monicagate and Whitewater cases, his impartiality was questioned. Many dismissed him as a “Republican.” Fitzgerald was indeed a Republican. But if a Democratic president is involved in a scandal or corruption, who says a Republican cannot investigate him?

For a judge, impartiality and independence are fundamental. Is Chou Chan-chun a reformist, or a hatchetman? People will draw their own conclusions. From the very beginning, the Chen corruption case has been dogged by political interference. Prosecutors and judges have hobnobbed with politicians. The judicial system needs to do some serious soul-searching, and figure out how to eliminate political influence from the trial process.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.12.25
司法究竟該如何排除政治干擾
中時社論

扁 案在藍綠夾擊下，周占春法官日昨公開表示，他不是非審扁案不可，如果前審吳淑珍國務機要費案的法官蔡守訓願意，他很樂意將扁家四大弊案，全部併案移送蔡守 訓。尷尬的是，或許是畏懼政治干擾，連蔡守訓都無意承攬全部的扁家弊案。扁案偵結，台北地方法院碰到的第一個難題竟是：到底由誰承審？

周 占春到底是藍是綠？從他二度釋扁以來，一直備受藍營質疑，立委找出周占春近年承審的卅七個案件，只有兩件未押，其他卅五件都裁定羈押，譏笑周根本不是重視 司法人權的人；更麻煩的是，藍營還找得出來周占春在總統大選時為陳水扁拉票，馬英九特別費案在司法審理程序時周竟私下表示，此案若落到他手中，「一定判他 （馬）十年！」周占春的言行在藍營，甚至在部分民眾眼中，已形成立場可能左右判決之印象。

不過，周占春「私下」的政治言行，是否真正影響 他專業的司法判決，還是要實證檢驗，比方說，當年檢察官劉承武公然為扁站台輔選，就被嚴重質疑，但周並未公開站台，只是私下拉票，相信司法界同樣有私下為 馬拉票者，只要不是公開站台，就無違司法官的專業規範！至於他到底有沒有說過要判馬十年之事？因為沒聽到周的前言後語，也很難以此定論其藍綠，比方說，他 可能是對清廉非常堅持之人，對馬都要判十年，若以此標準問他對扁案可能判幾年，他的答案也可能出乎意外的重。藍營批評他，對周是壓力；綠營褒揚他，對他也 未必有利。政治立場被「鎖定」的法官，除非有相當定力，其司法專業空間難免就被限縮，即使他自信公正，但任何判決結果都會遭懷疑，這對司法的威信無疑是最 大打擊。

對周占春而言，他還未開始真正審理扁案，各界即以他過去言行或交往對象，揣測其心證，未盡公平；但是，身為舉國、甚至世界矚目的 元首弊案承審法官，難免遭到質疑與非議，周占春被批評，還有過去的言行為憑；對比當年偵辦吳淑珍國務機要費案的公訴檢察官張熙懷，遭到綠營鋪天蓋地般圍 剿，從中央到地方公職，從各類綠營社團到電視名嘴，全面發動，連他因為兩岸司法交流赴大陸，都被批評為「叛國」，終至落淚，情緒失控，甚至缺席法庭的情 境，周占春的處境其實好多了。

扁家弊案所涉金額龐大到難以想像，金流脈絡猶如蜘蛛網般複雜，更攸關前第一家庭的全體成員，以綠營慣於操作群眾情緒，且以此作為政治施壓手段，無可避免地讓政治力插手司法案件，對扁家可能不利者，無所不用其極地圍剿，對扁家可能有利者，則稱頌喝采。

綠 營如此，藍營與扁家弊案周旋三、四年，儘管動員能量沒有綠營強，但愛之欲其生、恨之欲其死，幾無二致。特偵組偵辦扁家弊案過程中，藍營部分立委到電視名 嘴，一而再、再而三質疑特偵組辦案對扁過分禮遇，對關係人過分禮遇，待特偵組第一波偵結起訴，又懷疑特偵組急乎乎起訴，是否故意留下漏洞？乃至對周占春的 審理，始終不信任。

不論藍的、綠的，對司法偵辦審理中的案件，以自己所愛的立場評論、施壓，甚至希望藉此影響案件進行的方向，這些都是不 正常的現象，但卻都是民主社會沒辦法禁絕的言論自由。就像美國獨立檢察官費茲傑羅，調查美國總統柯林頓所涉及的緋聞案、白水案時，同樣遭到輿論全面性的質 疑，直指他根本就是「共和黨」，費茲傑羅確實是共和黨，但若民主黨的總統涉入醜聞或弊案，誰曰不宜調查？

作為司法官，公正、獨立辦案乃是基本信條，周占春在司法界到底是「改革派」，還是「立場派」，自有公評；但扁案從調查伊始即無從逃脫於政治干擾，甚至從檢察官到法官都無可避免地被揭露曾與政治人物過從甚密，司法界或許也該更嚴格地反省：司法究竟該如何完全排除政治干擾？