Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎 〔前美國在台協會主席〕 Coen Blaauw ﹝華盛頓FAPA ﹞ Stphane Corcuff﹝法國里昂大學「中國和台灣研究」政治學副教授﹞ Gordon G. Chang ﹝「即將崩潰的中國 」作者﹞ David Curtis Wright ﹝加拿大Calgary 大學歷史系副教授﹞ June Teufel Dreyer ﹝邁阿密大學政治學教授﹞ Edward Friedman ﹝威斯康辛大學政治學和東亞研究教授﹞ Mark Harrison﹝澳洲Tasmania大學資深講師華語研究主任﹞ Bruce Jacobs ﹝澳洲蒙納許大學亞洲語言和研究教授﹞ Richard C. Kagan ﹝翰林大學教授，「台灣的政治家，李登輝和亞洲的民主」的作者﹞ Jerome F. Keating ﹝國立台北大學副教授（已退休），"Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan's complex history"的 作者﹞ Hon. David Kilgour ﹝加拿大 前國會議員和亞太國務秘書﹞ Victor H. Mair ﹝美國賓夕法尼亞大學教授﹞ Donald Rodgers ﹝奧斯汀大學政治學副教授 ﹞ Terence Russell ﹝加拿大Manitoba大學教授﹞ Christian Schafferer ﹝副教授，國際貿易，海外華人華僑理工學院，奧地利協會東亞研究主席，主編「當代東亞」﹞ Michael Stainton ﹝加拿大多倫多York Center for Asia Research﹞ Peter Tague ﹝美國DC喬治城大學法律系教授﹞ 譚慎格 ﹝美國傳統基金會高級研究員﹞ Arthur Waldron ﹝美國賓夕法尼亞大學教授﹞ Vincent Wei-cheng Wang ﹝美國里奇蒙大學教授﹞ Gerrit van der Wees ﹝台灣公報編輯﹞ Stephen Yates葉望輝 ﹝前美國副總統亞洲政策顧問﹞ Terri Giles ﹝洛杉磯福爾摩沙基金會執行主任﹞ Daniel Lynch﹝美國南加大國際關係學院副教授 ﹞
GIO minister answers open letter By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China.
Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
On the occasion of the first anniversary of your presidency, we, the undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, wish to publicly address our concerns to you about a number of trends in Taiwan, as well as several specific developments.
We raise these issues as international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state. As you recall, we voiced concerns on three previous occasions, most recently in a letter to you, Mr President, dated Jan. 17, 2009, in which we expressed our concern regarding the fairness of the judicial system in Taiwan.
These concerns have not been alleviated by either the response from Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) or the cessation of troubling, flawed and partial judicial proceedings, in particular involving the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
We reiterate that any alleged corruption must be investigated, but emphasize that the judicial process needs to be scrupulously fair and impartial. In the case of the former president, it is evident that the prosecution is heavily tainted by political bias, and that the former president is being treated badly out of spite for the political views and the positions he took during his presidency. Such retribution does not bode well for a young and fragile democracy, as Taiwan is.
The second issue that we feel we need to highlight is press freedom. In spite of earlier expressions of concern by international organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom House, there continue to be reports of impingement on press freedom by your administration. A case in point is the recent disturbing report that Central News Agency staff were instructed to write only “positive” stories about the policies of your administration, and that reports containing criticism of your administration or China were excised.
As supporters of a free and democratic Taiwan it is disheartening to see that in the annual report on press freedom by the New York-based Freedom House, Taiwan dropped from 32nd to 43rd place. In addition, it is disconcerting to see reports that groups with close ties to China are buying their way into Taiwan’s media circles, gaining a controlling voice in major publications such as the China Times. We need to remind ourselves that China is still an authoritarian state with a long history of control of the news media. Its financial influence in Taiwan’s free press will in the long run be detrimental to hard-won freedoms.
This leads us to a third general issue: the means by which rapprochement with China is being pursued. While most people in Taiwan and overseas agree that a reduction of tension in the Taiwan Strait is beneficial, it is crucial to do this in a manner befitting a democratic nation: with openness and full public debate. Only if there is sufficient transparency and true dialogue — both in the Legislative Yuan and in society as a whole — will the result be supported by a significant majority of the people.
Transparency and true dialogue have been lacking in the process. Decisions and agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public. The Legislative Yuan seems to have been sidelined, having little input in the form or content of the agreements, such as the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). The administration simply sends to the legislature the texts agreed to in the negotiations with the People’s Republic of China, allowing virtually no possibility of discussion of the pros and cons of such agreements. This undermines the system of checks and balances, which is so essential to a mature democracy. We may mention that recent opinion polls show overwhelming support for a referendum on an ECFA and for better legislative oversight of China policy.
Mr President, as international scholars and writers who have followed Taiwan’s impressive transition to democracy during the past two decades, we know the sensitivity in Taiwan of the issue of relations with China. Rapprochement needs to be carried out in a way that ensures that the achievements of the democratic movement are safeguarded, that the political divide within Taiwan is reduced and that Taiwan’s sovereignty, human rights and democracy are protected and strengthened.
However, during the past year we have seen that the policies of your administration are being implemented in a way that is causing deep anxiety, particularly among many who fought for Taiwan’s democracy two decades ago. This was evident in the large-scale rallies held in Taipei and Kaohsiung on Sunday.
We have also seen a further polarization in society due to the lack of transparency and democratic checks and balances. Many observers believe that the rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of Taiwan’s sovereignty, democracy and freedoms. To some, the judicial practices and police behavior toward those who criticize your policies are even reminiscent of the dark days of martial law.
In this respect, symbols are important. It does not help that your administration has renamed National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. It doesn’t bolster your case that the funding for the Chingmei Human Rights Memorial in Sindian (新店) has been cut drastically and that the location is being turned into a “cultural” park. It doesn’t help that changes are being made to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) that infringe on freedoms of protesters instead of enhancing freedom of speech.
Mr President, we appeal to you to take measures that alleviate these concerns. A first step would be to initiate and implement reforms in the judicial system that safeguard the human rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial. A second step would be to guarantee complete press freedom, and instill in those engaged in the media the determination to live up to the highest standards.
Thirdly, rapprochement with China needs to be brought about in such a way that the people of Taiwan have a full say in determining their future as a free and democratic nation. Closed-door deals that bring Taiwan increasingly into China’s sphere of influence are detrimental to Taiwan’s future and undermine the democratic fabric of society.
Due to its complex history, Taiwan has not had the opportunity to be accepted as a full and equal member of the international family of nations. We believe the people of Taiwan have worked hard for their democracy, and that the international community should accept Taiwan in its midst. Your actions and policies can help the island and its people move in the right direction. We urge you to do so.
Respectfully yours,
NAT BELLOCCHI
Former chairman, American Institute in Taiwan
COEN BLAAUW
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
STéPHANE CORCUFF
Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon
GORDON G. CHANG
Author, The Coming Collapse of China June Teufel Dreyer
Professor of Political Science, University of Miami
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
TERRI GILES
Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
BRUCE JACOBS
Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University
RICHARD C. KAGAN
Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University
JEROME F. KEATING
Author and associate professor (ret.),
National Taipei University
DAVID KILGOUR
Former Canadian member of parliament and secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific
LIU SHIH-CHUNG
Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington
MICHAEL RAND HOARE
Emeritus Reader at the University of London, Great Britain
VICTOR H. MAIR
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature,
University of Pennsylvania
DONALD RODGERS
Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College
TERENCE RUSSELL
Associate Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
CHRISTIAN SCHAFFERER
Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology; and Editor, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
MICHAEL STAINTON
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada
PETER CHOW
Professor of Economics, City College of New York
PETER TAGUE
Professor of Law,Georgetown University
JOHN J. TKACIK JR.
Former senior research
fellow, The Heritage
Foundation, Washington
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG
Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond
GERRIT VAN DER WEES
Editor, Taiwan Communiqué
MICHAEL YAHUDA
Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics, and
Visiting Scholar, George
Washington University
STEPHEN YATES
President, DC Asia Advisory, and former deputy assistant to the US vice president for national security affairs
Posted by bigburger
at May 24,2009 22:35
網友tottoro的翻譯
Open Letter to Taiwan's President
Taipei Times
May 21, 2009
Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎 〔前美國在台協會主席〕
Coen Blaauw ﹝華盛頓FAPA ﹞
Stphane Corcuff﹝法國里昂大學「中國和台灣研究」政治學副教授﹞
Gordon G. Chang ﹝「即將崩潰的中國 」作者，邁阿密大學政治學教授﹞
Michael Danielsen（「台灣角」主席，丹麥哥本哈根）
Terri Giles ﹝洛杉磯福爾摩沙基金會執行主任﹞
Bruce Jacobs ﹝澳洲蒙納許大學亞洲語言和研究教授﹞
Richard C. Kagan ﹝翰林大學教授歷史系榮譽教授﹞
Jerome F. Keating ﹝國立台北大學副教授（已退休）﹞
David Kilgour ﹝加拿大 前國會議員和亞太國務秘書﹞
Liu Shih-Chung（華盛頓州Brookings研究所客座研究員）
Michael Rand Hoare（英國倫敦大學榮譽讀者）
Victor H. Mair ﹝美國賓夕法尼亞大學中文和文學系教授﹞
Donald Rodgers ﹝奧斯汀大學政治學副教授 ﹞
Terence Russell ﹝加拿大Manitoba大學中文和文學系副教授﹞
Christian Schafferer ﹝副教授，國際貿易，海外華人華僑理工學院，奧地利協會東亞研究主席，主編「當代東亞」﹞
Michael Stainton ﹝加拿大多倫多York Center for Asia Research﹞
Peter Chow（紐約市立學院經濟學教授）
Peter Tague ﹝美國DC喬治城大學法律系教授﹞
譚慎格 ﹝前美國傳統基金會高級研究員﹞
Arthur Waldron ﹝美國賓夕法尼亞大學國際關係學教授﹞
Vincent Wei-cheng Wang ﹝美國里奇蒙大學政治學教授﹞
Gerrit van der Wees ﹝台灣公報編輯﹞
Michael Yahuda（英國倫敦經濟學院名譽教授，喬治華盛頓大學訪問學者）
Stephen Yates葉望輝 ﹝ DC亞洲諮詢主席，前美國副總統亞洲政策顧問﹞
