The Chen Family Gives Deep Greens a Slap in the Face

The Chen Family Gives Deep Greens a Slap in the Face
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation 
February 13, 2009

 Wu Shu-chen, accompanied by her newly-recruited legal counsel, re-appeared in court, 788 days after her last appearance. She agreed to a "technical plea of guilty." She did not resort to her usual fainting tactics. For Deep Green Taiwan independence supporters, who did everything in their power to obstruct justice, watching Chen Shui-bian's wife and son plead guilty must have been a bolt out of the blue.

Wu Shu-chen could drag out the process and refuse to appear in court in part because of her physical condition, and in part because her Deep Green legal defense team worked hand in hand with the Chen family to politicize their indictment and spin their prosecution for corruption and money-laundering as "judicial persecution." The defense team's showmanship trumped the prosecution's professionalism. Nevertheless, once Chen Chih-chung and his wife asked for a plea bargain, the result was an internal uprising. Lee Sheng-hsiung and others terminated their client-attorney relationship with Wu Shu-chen. Within one short week, Wu Shu-chen quickly found replacements for all three members of her legal defense team. She decided to plead guilty to some of the charges against her. By then, the ugly face of the Chen family's corruption had been exposed. Do Taiwan independence supporters still wish to maintain that Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen were sacrificial martyrs nailed to the cross for supporting Taiwan Independence?

The stubborn illusions Deep Greens have regarding Chen Shui-bian are incomprehensible, particularly now that the Chen family scandals have been exposed by prosecutors. A bunch of pro-independence lawyers and Deep Green elements persist in white-washing Ah-Bian's crimes. One can only wonder what they are thinking. Lee Sheng-hsiung's statement upon terminating his relationship with the Chen family offers us an insight. He said being Ah-Chen's attorney was in effect, "leading the entire Chen family to the Lord." Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-Ching's confession precipitated an internal uprising. He could no longer act as Ah-Chen's attorney. Lee conflated the roles of legal counsel and spiritual advisor. He seemed more interested in abstract faith, to the point of neglecting his client's interests.

For Lee Sheng-hsiung, his role as Taiwan independence elder trumped his role as defense attorney. That may be the ultimate reason he opposed a guilty plea. Only by refusing to acknowlege the legitimacy of secular justice, could he depict criminal prosecution as "political persecution," and maintain the sanctity of Taiwan independence.

The problem with lawyers such as Lee Sheng-hsiung, is that their other roles have compromised their role as defense attorneys. Urging the Chen family to believe in the Lord, and helping the Chen family achieve spiritual tranquility, is noble. But ignoring real world circumstances, to the point of obdurately urging the Chen family not to admit guilt, runs counter to the goal of helping them seek redemption. Besides, defense attorneys have a sworn duty to use the legal tools at their disposal to safeguard the rights and interests of their clients. Advising a defendant not to plead guilty merely because doing so would undermine the attorney's political faith is both dereliction of duty and a violation of professional ethics.

Lee Sheng-hsiung and others could neither advance nor retreat. Their dilemma reflects the dilemma of Deep Green Taiwan independence thought and action. One. As a political movement Taiwan independence must offer a vision to attract followers. But Deep Greens have bet everything the farm on the hopelessly corrupt Ah-Bian. What are they doing, if not asking for trouble? Two. Any movement must constantly engage in soul-searching and fresh thinking in order to clarify its values and reaffirm its goals. But Deep Green Taiwan independence elements want only to deny the legitimacy of the political framework and the justice system. They even want to undermine such universal values as justice, integrity, conscience. In the process, they have merely marginalized themselves. Over the past eight years, "nativist" sentiment has indeed grown. But the Taiwan independence movement has simultaneously withered. One reason is the constraints of reality. Another reason is that Chen Shui-bian overplayed his hand. To continue putting Chen Shui-bian on a pedestal, this late in the game, is self-degradation.

Wu Shu-chen has pleaded guilty to some of the indictments against her. Now that she no longer needs to act out the role of "victim of political persecution," she seems more relaxed. It has now been established that Chen Chih-chung and his wife knew they were involved in money laundering. Wu Shu-chen knew she took money she shouldn't have. She can no longer feign innocence. She has in effect lowered the sacred banner that Taiwan independence elements raised. She has come back down to earth. She will have to pay a price, of course. But at least she can come back down to earth. She can resume the role of wife and mother. She need no longer remain imprisoned within Bao-lai Gardens, on the Deep Green sacrificial altar arranged for her by Taiwan independence elements.

Regardless of how genuine their repentance might be, Chen Chih-chung, Huang Jiu-ching, and Wu Shu-chen have pleaded guilty. At least they have acknowledged they can no longer deny legal responsibilty. By contrast, the blinkered, Deep Green supporters of Taiwan independence who continue to insist that Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen are victims of judicial persecution, are truly lost. They have no idea where their imaginary Nation of Taiwan can be found. Meanwhile, they have forsaken whatever fundamental moral and ethical beliefs they might once have held.

Take the following four values: law, democracy, morality, and religion. Which of these should lawyers value the most? Or, within the dark and endless tunnel that is Taiwan independence, can all of them be discarded?

扁家給了台獨深綠一記悶棍
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.13 02:37 am

距上次開庭七百八十八天，吳淑珍在新聘律師的陪伴下重新出庭；她使出「技術性認罪」，未再演出昏厥戰術。看到阿扁妻、子相繼認罪，千方百計阻撓司法偵辦的台獨深綠人士，恐怕有如五雷轟頂！

吳淑珍能拖那麼久不出庭，一方面是以身體狀況特殊為藉口，另方面則是政治色彩強烈的律師團配合扁家採取高度政治對抗策略，企圖將全案定位為「司法迫害」，以抵制偵審。這些律師在政治操作上的演出，尤勝過法律專業上的表現。然而，在陳致中夫婦驟然提出認罪協商後，此一布局已形同爆發內部叛變，李勝雄律師更因而與吳淑珍解除委任關係；短短一周，吳淑珍臨時更換了全部原聘的三名辯護律師，並走上當庭部分認罪之路。至此，扁家所涉貪瀆弊案的原形畢露，深綠還要堅稱扁珍是為台獨建國被釘上十字架的犧牲者嗎？

深綠對陳水扁何以存有如此執迷的幻想，令人難解。尤其在扁家弊案內情陸續遭檢方偵破之後，一批以獨派律師為核心的深綠人士卻還在為阿扁塗脂抹粉，已至不知所云的地步。這從李勝雄解除委任的聲明可窺見一斑：他聲稱擔任阿珍律師是為「帶領扁全家信主」，因致靚認罪導致扁家親情衝突，所以不再為珍辯護。他不僅將「律師」和「牧師」角色混為一談，似乎更到了只顧抽象信念、罔顧當事人權益的地步。

凌駕在李勝雄「律師」和「長老」身分之上的，其實是他「獨派大老」的角色，那可能才是他反對認罪的終極謎底：不承認世俗的司法審判，才能將弊案塑造成「政治迫害」，才能維持台獨信念的神聖性。

李勝雄等律師的問題，在於他們把自己的多重身分夾纏在辯護任務上。要勸服扁家信主、幫扁家獲得心靈平靜，這是高尚的關懷；但若罔顧現實情境，竟至堅持扁家不可認罪認錯的地步，這恐與協助懺悔的目標已背道而馳。再說，律師的天職既在運用司法工具以維護當事人權益，若竟一味根據律師自己所信奉的政治利益行事，不同意被告認罪；從專業上看，這恐怕是不稱職、也不道德的。

李勝雄等的進退失據，也正反映了深綠獨派的思想侷限和行動困境。第一，台獨作為政治運動，需要提供理想願景吸引群眾追隨；但深綠卻孤注一擲將所有賭注押在貪瀆無行的阿扁身上，豈非自貽伊戚？二，任何運動皆須不斷反省及更新論述，充實其價值和目標；但深綠獨派不僅企圖要全盤否認現行體制和司法，甚至要顛覆社會大眾所共信的正義、廉恥等價值，這等於是自我邊緣化。三，過去八年台灣本土意識確有深化，台獨運動卻反而倒退，除了現實條件所限，阿扁肆無忌憚地玩權弄術也是主因。如今還要將陳水扁奉為教主，更無異於自甘墮落。

從吳淑珍出庭並選擇性地認罪看，不須刻意表演「政治受難」戲碼的她，似乎顯得輕鬆許多。陳致中夫婦自知涉及洗錢的事證明確，吳淑珍當然更知道自己拿了不該拿的錢，無法繼續假裝無辜；所以，她把自己從獨派為扁家架設的「神聖家族」旗桿上降了下來。回到地面，她當然要付出代價，但她至少可以重回人間，回復其人妻及人母的天倫反應，不必自我囚禁在寶徠花園和台獨人士為她布置的深綠聖壇。

不管坦白了幾分，致靚和吳淑珍相繼認罪，至少表示他們亦知有無可遁逃的法律責任。相形之下，那些還矇著眼睛宣稱扁珍是遭受司法迫害的深綠台獨，才是真正的虛無主義者；他們想像中的國家還不知道在哪裡，卻連自己原本持守的道德信仰也都拋棄殆盡了。

請問：在法律、民主、道德、宗教四個選項中，一位律師的價值次序應當是什麼？或者，在幽深無盡的台獨隧道中，難道這些全都可以拋棄？