DPP, Leave Taiwan's Democracy Some Shred of Dignity

DPP, Leave Taiwan's Democracy Some Shred of Dignity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2013

Summary: Su Tseng-chang is Party Chairman to the largest opposition party, at one time the ruling party. Democracy demands responsibility. All are equal before the law, Blue and Green alike. All that matters is right and wrong. The conflict began when the DPP unconditionally threw its support behind Ah-Bian. The public's tolerance of Democratic Progressive Party shennanigans has limits. Chen Shui-bian as a former head of state, should cling to some shred of dignity. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party and the ROC's democracy, it is time to ring the curtain down on this farce.

Full text below:

Former President Chen Shui-bian has been transferred to the Taichung Prison's Pei-de Hospital. Lo and behold, this has provided Chen supporters with yet another pretext for shrill protests. DPP legislator Chiu Yi-ying, a Chen Shui-bian supporter, even kicked down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. As a result, she has been summoned before the court. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang criticized the Ministry of Justice's action. He said it was an unwise move toward direct conflict. Chiu herself argues that she was merely exercising her authority as a legislator.

Chen Shui-bian is a former head of state. Just how should the government deal with his crime? The dispute has dragged on for years without end. But the duties of a legislator do not include the destruction of public property. Of this there can be no doubt. Both Chiu and the DPP must understand this. Otherwise, support for Chen Shui-bian will merely harm their own party. The price will be too high.

Chen Shui-bian has been serving time. His sentence has become a topic of conversation. He was being diagnosed and treated at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The slightest physical discomfort, was given a definite political spin. Chen's physical and mental condition is not good. But it does not call for medical parole. As for justice and humanity, there are clear boundaries. One. The president cannot intervene in the case. Everything must be conducted in accordance with the law. Two. Chen has been indicted in 10 cases. Judgements have been rendered in only six of them. Three are still being prosecuted. The prosecutors have yet to complete their investigation. Prior to the conclusion of the judicial process, it is too soon to talk of pardon or parole. Three. Chen Shui-bian is currently a serving out a sentence. He is not merely being detained while under investigation. This is not a "human rights" issue. Four. Chen is a former head of state. His incarceration is unprecedented. The law makes no special provisions for this. But many see a need to provide him with some degree of special treatment. Taipei Prison gave him separate quarters, and security arrangements during his medical treatment. The Taipei Prison did everything in its power to accomodate him. Chen does not qualify for medical parole. He has been transferred to Pei-de Hospital where he luxuriates in 30 square meters of private quarters, and 330 square meters of garden. This sort of VIP treatment is not accorded any other inmate.

Former Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Shih Ming-teh     served 25 years as a political prisoner. He said it best. One. Everyone in prison feels pain. Take any one hundred inmates. One can be sure that every last one of them suffers from chronic depression. What must be improved is the medical care accorded prisoners. Years ago Huang Jen-chung was imprisoned because he was in behind in his tax payments. Even though Huang was afflicted with chronic illnesses, he was not allowed to bring any medicine into prison. As a result he died a premature death. Who protests the injustice visited upon Huang Jen-chung? Two. When Chen was inaugurated president, he swore an oath. "I will abide by the Constitution, fulfill the duties of my office, enhance the public welfare, defend the nation. and live up to my oath of office. If I violate my oath, I am willing to accept severe punishment by the state." Chen embezzled money from the nation's coffers. How dare he demand special privileges? Never mind that he does not feel the slightest remorse.

Three.  Most importantly, Chen Shui-bian faces a sort of prisoner's dilemma. As Shih Ming-teh noted, "The key to Chen Shui-bian' release is not in the hands of Ma Ying-jeou, or in the mouth of Chen fanatics, but in the heart of Chen Shui-bian." Chen Shui-bian must awaken, repent, acknowledge the error of his ways, and return his ill-gotten gains to the people of the nation. Only then can the doors to his prison, real and spiritual, be thrown open and Chen freed. Unfortunately Chen Shui-bian, who once served eight years as the symbol of the nation, completely fails to understand this. He obstinately refuses to admit that he did anything wrong.

Chen Shui-bian refuses to admit guilt. So be it. But the Democratic Progressive Party lost power as a result of Chen's crimes. Yet most party members ignore this. Shih Ming-teh sigh called on Chen Shui-bian to do the right thing. "As a former president, please try to retain some shred of dignity." This was also a plea to the DPP members and officials who still support Ah-Bian. Since Chen entered prison, he has staged one farce after another. Most of them were his own productions, under his own direction. They include disinformation campaigns about him being at death's door, and disinformation campaigns about him being suicidal. They forget that Chen's spin-doctoring, which showed himself stammering, exhibiting signs of dementia, and undergoing degeneration, undermines the dignity of this former head of state. The Democratic Progressive Party has been out of power for over five years. It remains under the "Curse of Chen Shui-bian." How can an opposition party unable to rid itself of the taint of corruption, ever return to power?

Many have expressed solidarity with Ah-Bian. Most agree that a former head of state should be accorded some degree of respect. They may be offended, but they remain tolerant. But their tolerance has limits. Chiu Yi-ying kicked down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. Meanwhile, the DPP maintains a facade of rationality and moderation. Legislators must provide oversight of the government. But that oversight is exercised through the legislative process. Since Chen's detention and imprisonment, DPP officials have not let a day go by without challenges in the legislature. They have obstructed legislature business. They have issued statements both rational and irrational. Chen supporters have protested endlessly outside Taipei Prison, Veterans General Hospital, and Pei-de Hospital. This are all actions that members of a democratic society may not approve of, but must tolerate. Green Camp legislators may gather around the Ministry of Justice. Let them. But they may not kick down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. Shih Ming-teh set the proper example. When he led the Red Shirts onto Ketegelan Boulevard to protest a corrupt president, many encouraged him to burst into the Office of the President. He held back. Chiu Yi-ying may feel aggrieved. But another former legislator, Chou Yi, crashed the gate to the Kaohsiung Court House. He was later prosecuted and served time.

Su Tseng-chang is Party Chairman to the largest opposition party, at one time the ruling party. Democracy demands responsibility. All are equal before the law, Blue and Green alike. All that matters is right and wrong. The conflict began when the DPP unconditionally threw its support behind Ah-Bian. The public's tolerance of Democratic Progressive Party shennanigans has limits. Chen Shui-bian as a former head of state, should cling to some shred of dignity. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party and the ROC's democracy, it is time to ring the curtain down on this farce.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.04.23
社論－給台灣民主留份尊嚴，民進黨別再鬧了
本報訊

    　前總統陳水扁移監台中監獄附設培德醫院，毫無意外，再度引發支持者的強烈抗爭，聲援陳水扁的民進黨立委邱議瑩甚至一腳踹破了法務部長室的門，因而遭到函送；民進黨主席蘇貞昌批評法務部此舉是「往衝突方向走」的不智之舉，邱本人則自認是行使立委職權。

    　台灣為了陳水扁這位卸任元首犯法，到底該有如何的處遇，爭議經年不休，但立委行使職權不包括毀損公物，應無疑義；不論對邱或對民進黨，都應該有清楚的認知，否則，挺扁不成反傷黨，代價未免太大了。

    　陳水扁服刑迄今，話題不斷，他的身體不適，經台北榮總診斷治療也有定論：扁身心狀況確實不好，但未達保外就醫的程度。至於司法與人道之間，也有很清楚的界限：第一，總統不能介入個案，一切要由法律判準；第二，扁涉入十個案件中，只有六件定讞，還有三件未完成司法程序，一件甚至檢察官都尚未偵結，在司法程序未完成前，談不上特赦或假釋；第三，陳水扁目前屬司法定讞的服刑，而非偵查中的在押，與人權無涉；第四，做為卸任元首，儘管過去無前例，法律亦無明定，但多數民眾也能認可必須給他一定的待遇。因此北監為他整理單獨的房舍，戒護就醫期間，北榮盡心盡力，未達保外就醫程度，移監到培德享受九坪房舍，一百多坪庭園，這個待遇是所有在監服刑者都無法企及的禮遇。

    　曾經坐過廿五年政治牢的民進黨前主席施明德說得最好，他的意見很簡單：第一，坐牢沒有不痛苦的，一百個囚人，一百個患有憂鬱症，該改善的是囚犯醫療，他以當年黃任中因為欠稅遭「管收」，患有慢性病的黃任中甚至不得帶藥進監所，因而提早病故，沒有人為黃任中喊一句冤；第二，扁任總統就職時曾宣誓，「余必遵守憲法，盡忠職務，增進人民福利，保衛國家，無負國民付託。如違誓言，願受國家嚴厲之制裁。」貪汙之扁何敢要求特殊禮遇，何況扁連愧疚之心都無。

    　第三，也是最重要的，面對陳水扁的「囚犯困境」，施明德說：「釋放陳水扁的鑰匙，不在馬英九手中，不在扁迷口中，而是在陳水扁心中。」只有陳水扁覺悟、懺悔、認錯並把不當利益還給國家人民，有形的監所、無形心牢大門都會為扁打開。很遺憾，曾經八年身為國家象徵的陳水扁，迄今完全不理解、不承認他到底犯了什麼錯。

    　陳水扁不認錯也罷，但離譜的是，因為扁的犯行而失去政權的民進黨，多數黨人甚至也恍若未覺，施明德感嘆呼籲陳水扁，「請留給我們一點前總統的尊嚴。」某種程度也是呼籲挺扁的民進黨支持者和黨人，因為扁入監服刑以來連番上演的鬧劇，很大部分都是他們製作、導演的，從誤傳扁病情到誤傳扁輕生，他們都忘記了，塑造扁口吃、失智、退化的形象，就是打趴卸任元首尊嚴的關鍵；民進黨失去政權五年多了，還是不能走出「陳水扁魔咒」，一個永遠無法擺脫貪汙犯法形象的在野黨，要如何重返執政？

    　對各種聲援阿扁的動作，一般民眾基於對卸任元首的基本尊重，保持雖嘆息但容忍的態度，但容忍也是有底線的；邱議瑩一腳踹破的不只是法務部長室的門，還有民進黨理性中道的門面。立委職司監督政府，然其職權行使在於國會問政，事實上，從扁在押到服刑，民進黨公職無一日不在議會殿堂質詢、杯葛，不論其發言基於理性或非理性；扁支持者在北監、在北榮、在培德門外抗議不斷；這都屬民主社會許多人不同意但必須忍受的範圍，即使綠委們群集法務部也罷，就是不能有破壞部長室門板此類的舉止。還是以施明德為例，當年他領導紅衫軍集結凱道抗議貪汙總統，多少人鼓動他衝進總統府，他節制了；如果邱議瑩不服，還有一位前立委同事邱毅為例，邱毅闖入高雄法院，毀其大門也遭函送法辦。

    　此外，蘇貞昌身為最大在野黨且曾經執政的民進黨黨主席，對台灣的民主發展是有責任的；法律面前應不分藍綠、只問是非對錯，衝突從民進黨無節制的挺扁時就已經開始，台灣社會對民進黨的容忍也有其底線。給陳水扁、卸任元首留點尊嚴，也為民進黨和台灣的民主留份尊嚴，這場鬧劇該停止了。