(Comments by Jay Tu: Gross double standards in Taiwan practiced by Ma’s government, the judicial system, the media, and general public are perhaps the worst problems in Taiwan today. Many activists who are fighting for President Chen’s human rights, life, and innocence often point out how abusive Ma’s government is in manipulating the judicial system to persecute President Chen. This article by Dr. Kuo Chang-Feng is unique because it points out the double standards practiced by DPP elites. One simple and commonsense question is: “Why do DPP elites think that everybody but President Chen has received an unfair trial?” The fact is that President Chen is the one who has been abused to the most extreme. Dr. Kuo lays out a real good argument in this article published in Taiwan Times on March 16, 2013 to question why DPP elites turned their backs on President Chen while supporting almost all other accused DPP members. Yes, “Why?” We are burning to get an answer, in particular, from DPP Chair Su and former Chairlady Tsai IW.)
On March 13, 2013, former DPP Secretary-General Wu Nai-Jen and top official Hong Chi-Chang were convicted of the “Breach of Trust” crime and sentenced to jail terms two and three years, respectively, for an alleged fire sale of a land owned by Taiwan Sugar Company. Wu Nai-Jen protests that the trial judge completely twisted the facts and ignored the evidences in his favor. DPP spokesman Lin Jun-Shian also expressed doubts about the verdict and implied that it was politically motivated. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-Chang and former Chairman Tsai Ing-wen both sided with Wu Nai-Jen and issued a statement that they "firmly believe Wu Nai-Jen’s honor and innocence.” DPP Central Executive Committee member, Hong Chi-Kun, wrote an article on his Facebook, titled “Beyond Upset”, to detail his personal friendship with Wu and announced both men are too noble to engage any illegal acts to benefit themselves. However, when we put the responses of these DPP elites to the Wu/Hon case side by side with their responses to the Abian cases since 2008, we, the Abian supporters, simply cannot accept the gross discrepancy between them.
First of all, the trial process of the Wu case does not have as many major flaws as those in the Abian case. In the Abian case, we have controversies such as indefinite detention without charges, illegal judge change during the trial, witness coercing, tempering and threatening (Jeffrey Koo, Jr. and Du Li-Ping), splitting a general case into multiple cases, political pressure by Ma to influence trial’s outcome, and unprecedented and constitution violating guilty verdicts by the High Court based on a newly invented de facto influence theory. Basically, the problems with the Wu case are related to the judicial discretion of the presiding judge, but the trial process itself did not have many irregularities. Both Wu and Hong were convicted not for corruption but for “Breach of Trust” which is related to the financial loss suffered by Taiwan Sugar Company. This loss can be verified through examining the land value and the transaction prices. Therefore, if both Wu and Hong indeed cost Taiwan Sugar Company the alleged financial loss, it would be hard to contest that the trial was unfair. (Note: Evidences show that Wu was no longer the president of Taiwan Sugar Company when the land deal went through and his successor had no obligation to follow his recommendations. In fact, the land deal went through eight months after Wu stepped down as the President of Taiwan Sugar Company. However, Wu’s successor who actually sold the land was not prosecuted. This article is not arguing if Wu and Hong are guilty but why DPP is fully behind them while, to this date, distancing itself from the Abian case.)
DPP’s top officials, chairman and former chairman, all immediately took a supporting position and denounced the verdict as politically motivated. We, the Abian supporters, have a hard time to stomach these responses when we compare them with their indifference or their statements to “respect” the guilty verdict against President Chen. Moreover, we have been asked by DPP to stay quiet and not to take actions to protest the verdicts against Abian for the sake of DPP solidarity. If not, we were told, we would be causing discords within the pan-green camp. How could we accept this practice of double standards by DPP?
Professor Tsay Ting-Kuay had issued an ultimatum, demanding DPP to take a stance and to proclaim that the Abian case is political persecution. Otherwise, Prof. Tsay would lead his group to throw shoes at DPP top officials, including current Chair Su and former Chair Tsai. However, DPP elites still hold out to openly claim that the Abian case is political persecution. Why? Dare not to or unwilling to? Nevertheless, they are afraid of the shoe throwing. Unabashedly, they asked the gravely ill President Chen to intervene and to discourage Prof Tsay from carrying out his ultimatum. For the sake of honoring President Chen, Prof. Tsay abandoned his ultimatum. Is this acceptable?
Hong Chi-Kun stated in his Facebook that former Secretary-General of DPP, Chiu I-jen, once said in 2006 that if DPP officials were timid in defending President Chen, they could be facing political persecution themselves. This statement, unfortunately, turns out to be true judging the flood of lawsuits against DPP members since 2008. It is about time that DPP elites stop practicing double standards regarding the Abian case. They should openly and loudly proclaim: “The Abian case is political persecution!” just as they defend other accused DPP members.
《頭家心聲》【台灣時報】 發佈日期： 2013-03-16