A Pardon for Chen Shui-bian Must Be Preceded by an Admission of Guilt

A Pardon for Chen Shui-bian Must Be Preceded by an Admission of Guilt
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 28, 2012

Summary: In classical tragedy, the characters often find themselves in a quandary. The "Should we or should we not pardon Ah-Bian?" debate has mired the DPP in a quandary. But this quandary is not a tragedy. It is a farce. It is a yawner that has somehow managed to drag on for five years, with no end in sight. Ironically, the Democratic Progressive Party has become its biggest victim.

Full Text below:

In classical tragedy, the characters often find themselves in a quandary. The "Should we or should we not support Ah-Bian?" debate has mired the DPP in a quandary. But this quandary is not a tragedy. It is a farce. It is a yawner that has somehow managed to drag on for five years, with no end in sight. Ironically, the Democratic Progressive Party has become its biggest victim.


The election of a corrupt president suggests that our democracy still leaves much to be desired. The result was our collective doing, and a national embarrassment. No one derives any pleasure out of seeing a former President behind bars for years to come. But is this really the right time to talk about a pardon? As an unnamed DPP legislator observed, "Does our society really support a pardon at this time? If not, can the DPP really rush things?" In other words, the president may have the authority to pardon a convict. But when society disagrees, does a president really dare to exercise that authority?

Taiwan today urgently needs to address many issues. They include U.S. beef imports containing Beta-Adrenergic Agonists, second generation health care, 12 year compulsory education, and local labor and foreign labor salaries. Every one of these issues affects people's livelihood. Every one of these issues competes for government attention. That a pardon for Ah-Bian suddenly erupted amidst these pressing issues, and has become the top priority on the Green Camp agenda, proves that Ah-Bian supporters have done their homework, and are truly adept at tugging at the heartstrings of DPP officials.

For example, Wu Shu-chen has threatened to ignore her physical infirmity and launch a personal protest. If the authorities do not release Ah-Bian on medical grounds, she threatens to rally the troops on Ketegelan Boulevard and stage a protest. Knowing full well that Premier Sean Chen lacks the authority to grant a pardon, Ah-Bian supporter Kao Chi-peng deliberately staged a publicity stunt in the legislature. He mounted the podium and repeated, 88 times, "Should we or should we not pardon Ah-Bian?" Nativist social organizations staged their own coordinated antics. Pirate radio shock jocks launched an offensive. They demanded that DPP Chairman Chen Chu, DPP county chiefs, DPP city mayors, and DPP legislators speak up on behalf of Ah-Bian. DPP officials were swamped. The DPP faced an even greater dilemma. In the past TSU "spiritual leader" Lee Teng-hui harshly condemned Ah-Bian's corruption. But the TSU's three legislators adopted diametrically opposite positions from their spiritual mentor. They became the vanguard of Ah-Bian's defense. The big Green Camp party and the little Green Camp party clashed. The TSU set its sights on the Deep Green vote. DPP legislators felt compelled to express support for Ah-Bian.

Eventually calls to "Pardon Ah-Bian!" began to exert pressure on the DPP, Wu Shu-chen's ability to manipulate people is astonishing. During a radio interview, Wu was blunt. She let it be known that Ah-Bian took money from financial conglomerates. She even said he donated it to the DPP. The amount totaled 1.4 billion. She even named names, saying who took money. She held up a notebook, saying everyone's name was in the book. Her speech was virtually extortion, and struck terror in the hearts of DPP legislators. Ker Chien-ming was forced to come forward, apply media spin, and call a halt to the process. 

Clearly this is not the ideal time to demand a pardon for Ah-Bian, mainly because of the legal process. A presidential pardon is not a straightforward judicial process.. It involves a modicum of political discretion. But a president pardon has strict preconditions. The convict must first exhaust all other forms of legal recourse. Only then can he be pardoned or exonerated. As DPP legislative caucus leader Ker Chien-ming said, "It is illogical to demand a pardon for him now. Ah-Bian must plead guilty to the Second Financial Reform scandal first."

Ker Chien-ming failed to make clear why it is illogical to demand a pardon now. Put simply, in order to qualify for a pardon, Ah-Bian must first exhaust all other means of legal recourse. But would Ah-bian really be willing to plead guilty? Would he really be willing to explain how to intervened on behalf of financial conglomerates? Based on past Chen family conduct, he clearly has no such intention. Ah-Bian does not merely deny that he is guilty of corruption. He insists he is the victim of political and judicial persecution. Since he shows no remorse, is the president really authorized to pardon him?

The degree to which Ah-Bian and his supporters are willing to engage in deception, is difficult for most people to appreciate. Ah-Bian and his supporters compare him to Myanmar champion of human rights Aung San Suu Kyi, or the political prisoners of the Formosa Incident. Actually Chen Shui-bian's closest counterparts are two former South Korean presidents, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. They are the ones he most closely resembles. They are the ones he should seek to emulate. They pled guilty to their crimes and apologized to their compatriots. They returned the money they embezzled. That is why they were eventually pardoned.

Chen Shui-bian finds himself in a dilemma. The president has the authority to grant a pardon. But he has no right to interfere with the administration of justice. If Chen Shui-bian wants a pardon, he must abide by the judicial process. He must admit that he is not a political prisoner. He must confess to corruption in open court. Only then will it be possible expedite the legal process. Only then will it be possible to grant him a pardon, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law.

Admit guilt. An admission of guilt is not merely in the political and moral interest of the nation. It is in the interest of Ah-Bian as a person. Only by admitting guilt can he meet the preconditions for a presidential pardon.

中國時報 　2012.03.28
社論－扁想特赦 應先認罪再求解套
本報訊

    　經典的悲劇中，常會出現兩難的困局；不過，目前上演的「挺扁不挺扁」戲碼，雖然也讓民進黨左右為難，卻是一場典型的鬧劇；而且歹戲拖棚，五年多還看不到完結篇，民進黨反倒成了最大的受害者。

    　某種程度而言，會選出貪腐的總統，這代表我們的民主仍有諸多缺失之處；這是全民共業，也是國家之恥。即使如此，沒有人會樂於見到前總統長年身繫囹圄；但關鍵的問題是，現在已到了談特赦的時機了嗎？正如某位不具名的民進黨立委所說：「現階段社會大眾支持對你的特赦嗎？如果不是，民進黨真能趕鴨子上架嗎？」換句話說，即使特赦權是總統的專屬權力，但是當社會輿論觀感不佳時，總統敢行使他的特赦權力嗎？

    　當前的台灣，亟須迫切處理的問題不少，從美牛瘦肉精、二代健保上路、十二年國教規畫、到本勞外勞薪資是否脫鉤，每一件都是攸關民生的大事，主事者也都爭相要將其搶上政府施政優先名單；在諸多政策中，「特赦救扁」議題竟然能夠異軍突起，成為綠營的主旋律，足證挺扁人士的精心營造，尤其是擅於掌握民進黨公職的心理弱點。

    　例如，扁嫂吳淑珍不顧自己待罪之身，親自出馬呼籲，若不讓扁就醫，就要帶人到凱道抗爭；接下來，明知閣揆陳冲並無特赦權，但是扁的子弟兵高志鵬卻刻意在國會質詢台上跳針大演出，連續追問了八十八次「應不應特赦阿扁」；配合這些公開的戲碼，本土社團、地下電台名嘴也配合發動攻勢，要求民進黨黨主席陳菊、縣市長、立委表態，讓民進黨要員左支右絀。更將民進黨逼入窘境的是，台聯的精神領袖李登輝過去曾直言批扁貪腐，但是台聯三立委的作為和精神導師背道而馳，竟然成了挺扁急先鋒，大綠小綠票源衝突，當台聯搶攻深綠市場，民進黨立委還敢不挺扁嗎？

    　最後，「特赦救扁」會成為民進黨的壓力，還必須佩服扁嫂吳淑珍的操作能力。她接受電台訪問時放話，扁即使拿了財團的錢，也是捐給民進黨，總數高達十四億；她還意有所指的說，誰有拿到錢，她手中還留著一本簿子，大家都有簽！這個幾近恐嚇的談話，讓民進黨立委心生畏懼，才不得不由柯建銘出面公開定調、踩煞車。

    　只是，現在顯然不是要求「特赦救扁」的最佳時機，最主要的原因在於法律時程。確實，總統特赦權並非單純的司法權，而有某種程度的政治裁量；但總統行使特赦權對象的前提要件是，已受罪刑宣告之人，所有官司都走完司法程序，才會有免刑或免責的問題。正如民進黨團總召柯建銘所說：「此刻要求特赦，等於後面二次金改等案，阿扁要先承認有罪，這個邏輯上是有問題的。」

    　所謂邏輯有問題，柯建銘沒有明說的是，扁若想符合特赦要件，趕快走完司法流程，扁肯認罪嗎？他肯承認自己如何介入，為商賈喬金控利益嗎？從扁家過去的作為來看，他顯然並無此意。目前，扁不但矢口否認貪瀆，更揚言自己受到政治、司法迫害，當他毫無悔意，總統有行使特赦權的正當性嗎？

    　扁及挺扁人士自欺欺人的程度難以想像，竟然自比緬甸人權鬥士翁山蘇姬，或是台灣的美麗島受刑人；事實上，陳水扁目前該學習的對象，是南韓兩位前總統全斗煥、盧泰愚，他們不但認罪道歉，而且還將貪腐款項匯回，最後才能得到特赦的待遇。

    　可以說，陳水扁自己現在也掉入兩難困局。總統雖有特赦權，但他卻無權干預司法審判流程；陳水扁如果想要爭取特赦，必須加速司法流程。那麼，他必須承認自己不是政治犯，在法庭上坦白自己的貪瀆罪行，才可能早日走完司法流程，屆時也才有依法特赦的可能。

    　認罪吧！這不只是政治道德問題，也為了扁的司法利益，唯有如此，他才符合被特赦的條件。