The Chen Case: From the Perspective of the President and the Chairman of the DPP

The Chen Case: From the Perspective of the President and the Chairman of the DPP
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 12, 2009

Tsai Ing-wen says the Chen case has "unavoidable political implications." She called on President Ma to deal with the case judiciously, lest it become a spark that sets off social unrest. He should consider various possibilities, including a presidential pardon.

The Chen family scandal has indeed created social unrest. Everyone from housewives to TV pundits have something to say about it. But Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are the two people who ought to be the most discreet in discussing about the Chen case. They are the two people who enjoy the least "freedom of speech" compared to the rest of society. Because they are who they are, their remarks impact the nation's political institutions and present partisan perspectives. Because of who they are, they have little freedom to express "personal opinions."

How can Ma Ying-jeou not have thoughts about the Chen case, from either a legal or social perspective? How can he not have feelings? But he remains tight-lipped. All he is ever willing to says, is that he "defers to the courts," and "will not comment on the case." He has made clear that he "cannot comment."

President Ma's "cannot comment" attitude annoys many Blue Camp core supporters. Beginning with the controversy over whether to detain Chen Shui-bian, many have wondered why Ma Ying-jeou hasn't said a word about it. After all, this is a major case involving the plundering of national resources. Justice must be done. But Ma Ying-jeou, as the head of state, for the sake of the nation, must not intervene in the administration of justice. He must not "guide" the administration of justice. He must not exacerbate Blue vs. Green confrontation, regardless of what his personal feelings might be.

Ma Ying-jeou is exercising self-restraint. If the president intervenes in the Chen case, or even hints that he might intervene in the Chen case, the opposition party will accuse the Ma administration of "political persecution." That is why Ma Ying-jeou as president must refrain from intervention in the Chen case.

Tsai Ing-wen seems to be saying that Ma Ying-jeou, as president, should have granted Chen a presidential pardon, at the very beginning. She seems to be appealing to Ma to bring an end to the social controversy.

Tsai Ing-wen's appeal is rather ironic. The courts have yet to find Chen Shui-bian guilty. Yet the DPP, including Tsai Ing-wen, has been among the first to "acknowledge" that Chen Shui-bian is guilty, as charged. That is why Chen Shui-bian's spokesmen do not appreciate Chairman Tsai's call for a presidential pardon. Blue Camp legislators have poo-pooed any pardon, saying Chen shows no repentence. Even Deep Green elder Lin Cho-shui says a presidential pardon is not in order because Chen has yet to plead guilty.

Given the growing number of statements from witnesses within the Special Investigation Unit's Bill of Indictment, "everyone knows Chen is guilty." This includes the Democratic Progressive Party, which has reluctantly acknowledged his guilt. Nevertheless Chen Shui-bian refuses to confess. The impact of his refusal on the Democratic Progressive Party needs no comment. It has allowed a small number of people within the Democratic Progressive Party to continue making political hay out of the Chen case. Tsai Chi-fang has characterized Chen's defense as a "Jihad." Kaohsiung City Councilor Cheng Hsing-chu claims Chen "contributed billions to party comrades." Those flying Chen's banner each have their own political calculus. Meanwhile Chen Shui-bian continues exploiting the Democratic Progressive Party, and more importantly, Tsai Ing-wen.

Under the circumstances, what should DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen do? Surely Tsai Ing-wen is not going heed calls for a "Jihad?" Surely she cannot believe that calls for a "Jihad" are the spark that will touch off social unrest? Few today still believe Chen Shui-bian is innocent, even within the Democratic Progressive Party. Is the Chen case really a spark that will touch off social unrest? The only possibility is that Chen Shui-bian is still attempting to hold the Democratic Progressive Party hostage, still attempting to polarize society. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party's political future, Tsai Ing-wen, as party chairman, must decide. Will she help Ah-Bian take the DPP hostage? Or will she help the DPP free itself?

Tsai Ing-wen said the Chen case has "unavoidable political implications." She is right, but not in the sense she means. It does not mean Ma Ying-jeou should intervene in the Chen case. It means the DPP must take full responsibility for the political consequences.

Eventually the Chen case will come to a conclusion. Legally speaking, the proper conclusion to the Chen case is not Ma Ying-jeou granting Chen a presidential pardon, but the courts granting Chen a fair trial. Politically speaking, the proper conclusion to the Chen case is not the president "bringing an end to social conflict," but the Democratic Progressive Party taking a stand and answering to society. This will be the DPP's major test during the next election. Will Tsai Ing-wen publicly declare that "If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it will pardon Ah-Bian?" Ma Ying-jeou, as president, and Tsai Ing-wen, as DPP Chairman, each know what they must do.

看扁案：總統的高度和民進黨主席的高度
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.12 04:10 am

蔡英文說扁案「無可避免具有政治意涵」，呼籲馬總統慎重處理，勿使成為社會對立的引爆點，應考慮包括特赦在內的各種可能性。

扁家弊案確實鬧得社會沸騰，從街坊主婦，到政論節目名嘴，人人有話要說，個個自有觀點。不過，正是馬英九和蔡英文這兩人，看扁案、談扁案的「言論自由」尺 度，比起他人來，應是比較「不自由」一點；他們因職務角色所在，既涉及國家體制，也代表了政黨立場，以致少有「個人發言」的餘地。

馬英九如今看扁案，不管是從法律判斷的角度，或從社會影響力的角度，他怎會沒有感想？但他對此案封口，就算開口，說的也是「尊重司法」、「對個案不評論」，擺明了以「不可說」來表態。

馬總統對扁案「不可說」的態度，其實惹惱了不少藍營基本支持者。從阿扁要被押還是不押的紛擾那時開始，多少人質疑馬英九怎麼不「說句話」，畢竟這是一個掠 奪了國家資源和社會正義的大案子。但馬英九作為國家元首，為國家體制的緣故，不能介入司法、「指點」司法；且為了不加劇藍綠對立，即使有「個人的感想」， 亦不可說出口。

馬英九的自我克制，正是因為：如果總統的手伸進扁案，或言語表現出意圖影響扁案，則在野黨對於「政治干預司法」的指控就正式成立了。這是馬英九站在「總統高度」，必須堅持的分際。

看起來站在反面的一個現象是：蔡英文認為馬英九在「總統高度」應做的事，卻是在扁案審判程序初始進行之際，就希望他運用元首權力對扁特赦，且似乎有點呼籲馬藉此為社會「止爭息訟」的用意。

蔡英文這個呼籲本身，其實建立在一個很諷刺的基調上，即民進黨包括蔡英文本人在內，恐怕在司法判決定讞之前，已先「認知」了陳水扁是有罪的這個事實。也因 此，扁辦對蔡主席的特赦呼籲，首先就表示了不領情。不但藍營立委譏扁並未「悔改」，連林濁水都說，特赦扁的前提不存在，因他根本未認罪。

從特偵組的起訴書到越來越多的證人供述，在可謂「人皆知扁有罪」（包括民進黨不情願的默認）情況下，陳水扁至今堅持不認罪，對民進黨本身產生的衝擊不言可 喻。一方面是民進黨內少數人仍可繼續消費扁，例如蔡啟芳的「聖戰說」，高雄市議員鄭新助爆料的「捐黨內同志十億說」等等，打著「扁旗」的人各有各的算盤。 而另一方面，陳水扁之消費民進黨，更重要是消費蔡英文的效果，也始終維持著加溫。

這樣的情勢下，蔡英文站在民進黨主席的「高度」，應有的作為是什麼？蔡英文總不會要跟著「聖戰說」起舞，總不會相信「聖戰說」就表徵了「扁案是社會對立的 引爆點」吧？至今堅信阿扁無罪者，就算在民進黨內，恐怕比率已是微乎其微。扁案若對社會對立仍有引爆作用，唯一的可能性是因為阿扁仍在運作挾持民進黨，繼 續分裂台灣社會。站在現任黨主席高度的蔡英文，為了民進黨在台灣政黨政治發展的前途，是要選擇協助「阿扁挾持民進黨」，還是要協助「民進黨脫離阿扁挾 持」？

蔡英文說扁案「無可避免具有政治意涵」，這句話是正確的。但這句話的正確詮釋，不在於「所以馬英九應插手扁案」，而在於「所以民進黨應為扁案的政治效應負責」。

扁案最終會有一個收場。從司法的角度而言，應「收拾」扁案的，不是馬英九的特赦，而是法院的公正審判。從政治的角度而言，應「收拾」扁案的，不是由總統出 手去止爭息訟，而是由至今受扁攪和不已的民進黨去向社會表態；至於表什麼態，這將是對民進黨未來選擇的重大考驗。例如，蔡英文是否公開主張「若民進黨再執 政，就宣布特赦扁」？

站在「總統高度」及「民進黨主席高度」，面對扁案，馬英九和蔡英文各自應知所作為。