Chen Shui-bian, Prison,
and the Human Rights Choice Facing Taiwan
Posted: 06/17/2014;
Updated: 08/17/2014
By the end of the year, Taiwan's first (and to
date, only) opposition president will have been held in detention or
prison for seven years. There are supporters who maintain his unquestionable
and pristine innocence of all charges against him and there are detractors who
say that he should be held accountable for all charges that have been brought
against him, and not only for the ones he has been found guilty of. While there
is a real need to hold everyone accountable under a rule of law, it isn't
always a simple thing to actually apply such a principle. In the case of Chen
Shui-bian and being tried under an administration of the only party
allowed in Taiwan until the recent past, there have been allegations of what
might be charitably called "judicial irregularity," an unquestionable
polar politicization of the prosecution that has fallen broadly along party
lines of Taiwan's Blue v. Green divide, and we have certainly found that the
past has seen the systemic denial of complete and adequate medical care,
sufficient to make some of his conditions worsen considerably or be made
permanent and the creation of new conditions. We once again call on the release
of the former president through medical parole, a compassionate pardon, or a
graduated release program and call on it to happen as quickly as is feasible
for the sake of the future of a Taiwan where democracy and human rights both
flourish in full bloom rather than flicker in darkness.
In large part, the prosecution and imprisonment of
Chen has been a result of the return of the KMT (the Kuomintang, the bulk of
the Pan-Blue Coalition and until relatively recently the only party permitted
in Taiwan until the end of dictatorial rule) to a position of power in Taiwan
after the second term of the presidency. It is similarly true that most of the
Pan-Green Coalition (composed largely of the DPP or Democratic Progressive
Party) is sympathetic to Chen and maintain either his outright innocence or
call for him to be released early on grounds of health, age, and prior service.
It is difficult to overstate the polarization between these two positions when
it comes to public discourse in Taiwan. The KMT claims that it is improper to
interfere in the judicial process and that Chen must serve his term and not
receive any special treatment due to his previous political position and that
he has been found guilty of charges that must have time served. As would be
expected, supporters proclaim his complete innocence of all charges or any form
of wrongdoing.
While we support an independent and autonomous
judiciary, there are enough facts to show strong evidence of political
direction with the prosecution's choice to prioritize and vigorously pursue
Chen so pointedly, not enough information available about the ever-lengthening
list of charges-yet-to-be-brought against Chen, and certainly enough deviations
from accepted standards of fair judicial proceedings to call into question such
independence to begin with. On the question of medical support and care, there
is no question at all. When anyone is taken into custody by the State, it is
the obligation of the State to provide full and complete care of that person
for the duration of detention. In Chen's case, while there have been notable
improvements in such care, there were initial periods of surprisingly rushed
and inadequate care in spite of repeated calls made both within Taiwan and by
the international community for such care to be granted. In short, there are
concerns about the objectivity of the judiciary and there is clear violation of
standards with regard to some of Chen's care in at least the first few years of
his detention. Chen himself has become resolute that he won't be kept on the
edge of survival and has announced his intention to limit medical attempts to
revive him if he is allowed to become more gravely ill without any real relief
and the current medical advice is to remove him from the prison environment and
permit him to return home.
But it is the last of these defensive concerns that
are worth looking at again. The KMT maintains that Chen must serve his sentence
to completion and that any medical parole or other early release is impossible.
This is incorrect. There are indeed mechanisms in place to secure early release
for someone like Chen and they range in effect and speed, but to suggest that there
is no other option is disingenuous on the part of the government. The facts of
his deteriorating health and the knowledge that the conditions of detention
have been a contributing factor to such deterioration is of great import in
considering such a release option. Perhaps more importantly, it might be wise
for current President Ma Ying-jeou and his government to consider what this
appears to be to the international community and to Taiwanese themselves, for
it currently appears that the continued incarceration of Chen is an attempt to
punish the audacity of the opposition to actually challenge the KMT as the
source of power on the island and a cautionary warning to all others about the
hazards of demanding a voice in the question of how to govern.
As the first and to-date only opposition party
president in Taiwan's still very very young experience of multiparty democracy
and a flourishing civil society, Chen will always be a symbol of change and
possibility. This is true regardless of any view taken on the question of his
innocence or guilt of charges (and the arguments laid out here hold true no
matter what one believes). What sort of irreversible comment would the KMT be
making about Taiwan's future including multiparty elections and governance if
the former president dies in jail on nonviolent charges and conviction? Even if
one posits guilt, is that an appropriate message to send about what the KMT did
to Chen, who will always be the first and is currently the only one from
outside the KMT in modern Taiwan's history? Alternatively, if Ma were to break
with the pattern so far and to release Chen to return home, what would the
message and symbolism be? Couldn't it be to show those inside and outside of
Taiwan that the path to multiparty democracy was a permanent choice and one
that was fully mature? That Taiwan was firm and unyielding in embracing the
principles of human rights for all of its peoples? That Taiwan was strong
enough to concede when it had failed (in this case to deliver adequate medical
care) and could redress things the best it could with early release? That all
Taiwanese had a right to expect a voice in governance and that all peoples and
all parties could challenge each other in a fair and open political process?
How better to show that government had taken the necessary lessons from the Sunflower
Movement's sudden emergence a few months ago to herald a new voice in
Taiwan's politics and public consciousness?
The apparent speed with which the Sunflower Movement
rose and took root in the public imagination in Taiwan suggests that there is
perhaps another seismic shift afoot in the island's hearts and minds. Not so
very long ago, it appeared that the single party rule of the KMT would continue
indefinitely and there was very little reason to predict, much less expect,
change to come and very few predicted that it would move so quickly from
authoritarian state to mulitparty democracy including the election of an
opposition party to the highest halls of power. Since retaking the presidency,
there have been elements in the KMT who have seemingly sought to turn the clock
backwards to defend itself against difference. There has been a time in the
past when the people in power were able to look beyond their own individual and
party goals to do what was best for the people of Taiwan, to improve their
lives in the short-term and also for the long run. We hope that Ma Ying-jeou
and the brokers and policymakers in Taipei would see the wisdom of doing the
same again. Free Chen Shui-bian. Work to heal the political polarization. Grow
with the Sunflower Movement and plant the seeds of tomorrow and beyond. Taiwan
used to be one of the most inspiring places in Asia for human rights. We hope
that it can be so in the future.
Take a moment and contact your Representatives and
Senators. See www.contactingthecongress.org if
you're not sure who that is or how to do that. Generally, we think physical
letters have the best impact, then phone calls, then emails. But if all you
have time for is an email, it's certainly worth having your voice in any form
more than none. Remind them of the previously impressive track record of Taiwan
moving to respect human rights and to become a modern multiparty democracy and
tell them that you're concerned about their treatment of Chen Shui-bian and the
signal it sends to all opposition politicians in Taiwan and elsewhere in the
region who think of challenging single party rule. It would be far better to
send Chen home before his seventh anniversary of being in prison rather than
have him end up expiring in one. Free Chen. Free Taiwan.
