Tuesday, August 23, 2011

台灣酒類公會聯合會理事長謝豐享: 政府應立即議處馬英九

 
酒類公會理事長的不平之鳴 政府應立即議處馬英九
◎ 謝豐享

米酒一直是民生很重要的產品。過去米酒缺貨、漲價等事件也相當困擾執政當局。最近又因馬總統到處宣揚他把米酒價格從每瓶180元降為25元,並被封為米酒總統,而使米酒再度成為全國人民關心的議題。
我不想從政治面來談米酒問題。但酒類產品從製造、銷售、廣告促銷等,政府都有嚴格的規定,馬總統提到的米酒降價,其真實內容及其適法性是本文要談的重點。
1.米酒和料理米酒有何不同?
根據財政部於民國99年9月16日修正的酒品認證標準明文規定,米酒是以米為原料經液化、糖化、發酵及蒸餾而製成的蒸餾酒。料理米酒則是以不少於百分之五十的米酒加食用酒精調製而成,酒精度在10至20度,而且要在包裝上註明專供烹調之用。
2.菸酒稅計算標準不同
米酒的酒稅每公升每酒精度2.5元,而料理米酒的酒稅則是每公升9元(不計酒精度數)。因此,市面上銷售的米酒每瓶(0.6公升)約90元,而料理米酒則是每瓶25元。若以全米釀造,成本偏高,因此坊間私釀米酒(有部分未繳酒稅)已經賣到每公升60至80元。
3.WTO談判菸酒稅制的過程
在1999年,蕭萬長副總統(當時為行政院長)為主的談判代表在加入WTO的談判中將米酒列入一般的蒸餾酒,每公升酒稅從2000年的90元,逐年調高至2003年的185元。因此使紅標米酒的售價從每瓶20元調整至180元,造成甚大的民怨。但在去年的談判中,我國同意將米酒和料理米酒分開標示,而使料理米酒的售價調降為每瓶25元,但飲用米酒的售價仍高達每瓶90元以上。
談判乃是政府行為,是有時代背景,並且有其連貫性。談判的人和執行的人會因時間不同而不同,其實是很難將過失或成就歸於哪個政黨。
4.廣告的規定
菸酒管理法第三十七條規定,酒之廣告或促銷,應明顯標示「飲酒過量,有害健康」或其他警語,並且不能有鼓勵飲酒、妨害青少年健康或有易生誤解之內容。管理辦法中有明訂違反者,處十萬元以上五十萬元以下之罰鍰,並得連續處罰。而媒體事業違反規定播放或刊載者,由新聞主管機關處十萬元以上五十萬元以下之罰鍰,並得連續處罰。
從以上的說明,馬總統到處宣揚米酒降價政績的行為,可能已經明顯犯了下列的過失:
1.每瓶25元的是料理米酒,而非米酒。但馬總統一再強調米酒每瓶25元,不但與事實不符,而且將會使消費者誤飲,已有嚴重誤導的情形。
2.馬總統手中拿的每瓶25元料理米酒,是否有含50%以上的米?若沒有,則不但違法,也有欺騙消費者之嫌。根據酒類同業的成本計算,含有50%以上米的料理米酒,若不虧錢,根本不可能賣每瓶25元。馬總統一再強調米酒每瓶25元,已經讓業者無法再生產銷售真正的米酒。
3.馬總統在競選場合,提到米酒議題並且手中還握著酒瓶的動作,已違反不得在公共場所推廣酒品的規定。更何況有些場合還有很多學生及未成年人,實在是相當不妥。有誤導年輕人飲酒之嫌。
4.大部分媒體在報導這些新聞時,並未加以過濾內容的真實性及適法性,也未加註警語,已經犯法而且嚴重誤導國人正確使用料理米酒或米酒。
酒類同業在過去因疏忽而觸犯菸酒管理法規定而被罰者眾多。馬總統的行為比甚多業者疏忽犯錯的情形嚴重何止百倍。在此我們要請財政部,各縣市政府菸酒課及新聞局對上述事實以行動馬上議處,否則非但對以前受罰同業不公平,以後恐怕也難以在業者信服下做有效的管理。(作者現任台灣酒類公會聯合會理事長)

判李慶安無罪的法官叫什麼名字?

請問馬的總統:這個判決符合民眾期待嗎?
◎ 陳安文
去年十一月初,二次金改案阿扁獲判無罪,馬總統忍不住咬牙切齒發表「判決不符合民眾期待」言論,接著邀集高層「司法宴」,阿扁另涉龍潭購地兩案隨即被最高法院判決定讞,引發總統「干預司法」的質疑和撻伐。
李慶安「明知」具有雙重國籍,「故意」隱瞞而擔任議員及立委,而陸續獲取國家支給的薪資,連三歲小孩都知道這就是典型的「詐欺」。而且,既屬法律上「自始、當然、確定」的無效行為,本來就是不具民代「資格」的冒牌貨,何來在未經撤銷或解除職務前,無法證明有不法取財的意圖?況禁止雙重國籍身分,本為效忠義務的真正內涵,怎會「不必然對立」?
請問,擁有法學博士學位、喜歡假借總統職務對司法個案發表高見的馬先生,這樣的恐龍判決,符合民眾期待嗎? (作者為公務員)

法官逆轉法律
◎ 卓不林
李慶安雙重國籍案大逆轉,高等法院認為,公務員對國家的「效忠義務」與「擁有外國國籍」並不必然存有衝突。既是這樣,那為什麼法律要求公務員不得具有雙重國籍或擁有外國國籍?
這個判決,真的讓民眾對司法正義的期許大逆轉。 (作者為退休教師,新北市民)

薪水最高的外勞
◎ 石頁
高院二審宣判前立委李慶安詐領薪資案無罪定讞後,成就一個台灣史上薪水最高的外籍勞工,十年間領取納稅人血汗錢超過一億元,判決結果不符合一般人的道德良知,更違背人民對法律的信賴,除了再度重創了司法的社會觀感,也不禁讓人再三回味前國民黨大老許水德所言「法院是國民黨開的」
(作者為國立政治大學行政人員)

比較李慶安與李文忠
◎ 陳安
李慶安雙重國籍案,檢察官捨罪刑較重的貪污罪,而以較輕的詐欺罪起訴,已經露出「禮遇」的痕跡;地院一審以四個詐欺罪成立,判她兩年徒刑,上訴到二審後,高院昨日宣判無罪確定,李慶安因此獲得的不法獲利超過一億元,卻完全沒有法律責任,刑不上權貴,在此得到充分的證明,讓人覺得一審只是過場交代一下,到了二審就翻案,彷彿照著安排好的劇本走的司法秀。
再來對照另一個案子,李文忠上一次競選立委時,依據媒體的報導指對手涉嫌賄選,曾經遭他檢舉的法官,不僅不主動迴避,硬是判他八個月徒刑,還褫奪公權三年,不但關了他八個月,還無法參與三年內的所有選舉,因誹謗服刑如此之重者(通常罰鍰或拘役),已創司法史紀錄。
從李慶安與李文忠兩個案子,對民主與法治的傷害,孰輕孰重,一目了然,但司法卻可以如此厚此薄彼。
此外,陳致中「子為父隱」,解職服刑;陳肇敏「誤殺」小兵,「逾期」不理;楊錫安督導無方,差點高升副市長;特偵組還把前總統李登輝的舊案解凍起訴,對馬英九臉書圖利馬辦貪瀆疑案,卻視若無睹…。
馬英九治理下的司法,需要的不是改革,而是革命。 (作者曾任職媒體主管)

為馬英九脫罪鋪路
◎ 陸念慈
李慶安案大逆轉,法官竟然把李慶安故意隱匿雙重國籍的責任,歸咎於中選會與台北市選委會,認為選務機關查核不實,非李慶安之過。這樣的理由除了「欲脫其罪,何患無詞」之外,無法形容!如果這種邏輯可以成立,往後詐騙罪犯豈非統統無罪?因為都是被害人自己不察,怎可責怪罪犯詐騙?
此外,既然法院認定選務機關失察,則民進黨應該負起監督之責,前往法院與監察院控告中選會與台北市選委會瀆職,為納稅百姓討回公道!
然而本案最重要的玄機,在於做出判例認定「雙重國籍」參選無罪。再看看可能有七個英文名字、四個生日、與四個國籍的馬英九,此案一旦確立,日後馬英九就算被真抓包雙重國籍,也可援引此案無罪脫身,台灣人民只能徒呼負負,對這種詐騙集團莫可奈何!
(作者業商,全文請見http://blog.libertytimes.com.tw/ntlutw/

制度為個人脫罪
◎ 郭川珍
李慶安雙重國籍案昨日經高等法院判定無罪定讞,可謂「欲脫之罪,何患無法」。
簡單的說,不具公職身分,可以免去刑責較重的「貪污」罪,只論詐欺及偽造文書即可。因此,一審只判詐欺二年,偽造文書就當成沒這回事。
再審,公職身分未被解除,因此謀財有理、詐欺不成立。偽造文書一樣沒這回事;當然,鬧得風風雨雨的雙重國籍這一個事實,就在「公職」與「不具公職」的法律認定上模糊了,進而歸咎於主管相關機關。這是典型的個人犯罪、制度為她脫罪。
因為主管機關沒有盡到查明審查的義務,更沒有及時撤銷或解除職務,所以所得就不是非法。
照高等法院的說法,台北市議會、立法院以及中選會都是「瀆職」,因此,監察院應該徹查才對!
馬政府執政下的司法果然與眾不同,所以審判當然也就不同凡響,理所當然就不會「符合社會的期待」了!

(作者為教師,嘉義縣民)
高院鼓勵詐騙?
◎ 黃帝穎
高院判決李慶安詐領薪資無罪定讞,各界譁然。單看高院判決的「認事用法」,已令人難以置信。
李慶安具雙重國籍,卻在市議員及立委的個人資料表「具有其他國籍」欄位填寫「無」,公訴檢察官與一審法院都認定,這是以隱匿不告知其兼具外國國籍情事之詐術方式,使台北市議會及立法院陷於錯誤,交付薪資等費用逾一億元,觸犯刑法詐欺罪。但高院卻認定李慶安沒有主觀犯意、詐領的薪資具「實質對價」,判決無罪,這形同鼓勵「雙重國籍」的公職人員繼續詐騙,騙得越久,領得越多。
李慶安辯稱「美國國籍已在其宣誓就職後自動喪失」、「不具有詐領薪資的故意」,但是李慶安擔任台北市議員曾嚴詞質疑當時的副市長陳師孟具「雙重國籍」,為什麼陳師孟宣誓就職,美國國籍不會自動失效?全世界只有李慶安的美國國籍會自動失效?可見李慶安的「自動失效」、「不具故意」純屬脫罪之詞,高院卻完全採信,違反常理。
更誇張的是,高院認為李慶安領取的薪資,是執行職務的實質對價,所以不成立詐欺罪。但高院過去的判決顯示,假冒律師或密醫等不具資格者,他們為人訴訟或看診,其執行職務也都有實質對價,一樣被依詐欺罪判刑。同一個法院判決,差別待遇卻毫不掩飾,只要被告是國民黨的高官權貴,不論法官有無收賄,判決都會轉彎,人民如何信賴司法?
(作者為律師)

司法已失公道
◎ 吳景欽
李慶安案經第二審改判為無罪,依據刑事訴訟法第三七六條第四款,詐欺罪為不得上訴第三審的案件,此判決也將因此確定,李慶安宣稱司法還她清白,但誰還人民公道?
依國籍法第二十條第一項,雙重國籍者不得擔任公職,此雖為強制規定,惟關於違反此規定而當選的民意代表,到底是自始不具有公務員身分,還是須經由免職或法院的解職,才失去其身分,卻無法從法條中看出,而有相當的解釋空間。因此,檢察官即認為,李慶安因雙重國籍,自始即無民意代表的身分,所以不以犯貪污治罪條例第五條第一項第二款,公務員利用職務機會詐取財物的重罪,僅以刑度極輕的詐欺罪為起訴,而第一審法官亦贊同此見解。但讓人不解的是,既然李慶安若自始即不具有公務員身分,卻一再宣稱,其任內確有行使其民意代表的職責,以來證明其無任何詐欺情事,如此的辯解,不反證明其在實質上,仍屬公務員的事實,第一審法院未能深究,實已大有疑問。
而第二審不僅未能對此疑點為說明,更認為,李慶安在參選時,所提供的證明文件,都經相關主管機關的查證,因此,被告無使用詐術使人陷於錯誤而有成立詐欺罪之可能,更不會有使公務員登載不實文書罪的問題存在,自應為無罪判決。如此的見解,等於將所有責任推給了選委會,而認為選委會有實質認定證明文件是否真實之責,惟選委會並無任何法律所賦予的調查權,何來如此查證之責?退一步言,即使認為有此權限,如此的判決,不就表示,主管機關應查證而未查證,而得追究相關公務員的行政責任,甚至刑事上的公務員登載不實文書罪嗎?
今年三月,北市議會向李慶安追討薪資的行政訴訟,經高等行政法院判決認為,李慶安擔任市議員身分雖屬違法,但未經解職,其職務行為仍屬有效,因此,無庸歸還任何薪資所得。如此的見解,不僅與刑事判決認定李慶安非公務員的見解有異,更糟的後果是,現今被告以無罪脫身,追討薪資的行政訴訟若以敗訴為終,司法是還了李慶安清白,但違法取得的上億薪資,人民該向誰討回?
(作者為真理大學法律系副教授)

高院 莫測高深 ◎ 吳俊毅
民國八十三年,針對台北市副市長陳師孟的雙重國籍案,時任市議員的李慶安主張將有雙重國籍者移送監察院而且只要有雙重國籍,公職身分「自始當然確定無效」。這句話講得義正詞嚴,鏗鏘有力,於是陳師孟馬上飛到泰國放棄美國國籍。當時的李慶安是否有對自己的美國籍身分捫心自問且進一步求證呢?現在看來,顯然是沒有。
用同樣標準來看同為公職人員的李慶安,自民國八十三年以來「一直」以雙重國籍身分擔任中華民國議員及立委這十幾年的公職身分不該自始無效嗎?既然是自始無效,那麼這段時間所領的薪水,又有何正當性可言呢?
合議庭的見解著實讓人感到可說當時李慶安填載不實的國籍資料與詐欺取財無關。怎麼會無關呢?當她填載不實隱瞞雙重國籍身分時,不就已經具有「犯意」了嗎?她若是單純地想為民服務,大可以去做義工。想當民代的原因除了為民服務之外,「優渥」的薪水,難道不也是一種誘因嗎?更不用說背後參與到的龐大公共利益。
若依合議庭的謬論,想試問:詐騙集團在被警察抓到後,主動提出要將錢還給被害人並向對方道歉,他的行為就不算犯罪了嗎?詐欺就能一筆勾消了嗎?

雖違法 無犯罪
◎ 洪增陽
高院判決李慶安無罪,連我們非法律背景的人都讀得出判決內容邏輯雜亂無章!隨手舉個例:第一、合議庭舉例劉寬平前立委在人事資料有無其他國籍欄上填寫「美(籍)」,而立院仍然支給歲費及公費,來證明李慶安與詐欺取財無關,這原本是公務員未盡審查義務的失職案例,理應建議監察院好好調查與懲處,法院怎可拿錯誤的違法案例來作為脫罪的理由?然後文中又同時指責中選會、北市議會與立法院未盡查明的審查義務?要人家查明,但真正「沒查明」的時候又怎可拿來當作脫罪理由?
第二、合議庭認定李無主動告知外國籍的義務,所以無罪,那麼劉寬平「有」主動告知外國籍卻照常支領公費的「例子」,這是有罪還是無罪?有罪的是劉還是立法院?還是統統無罪?難道九十五年修正的「國籍法」第二十條「取得外國國籍者,不得擔任中華民國公職」是寫給外星人看的?
第三、合議庭認定李以雙重國籍當選公職,並經中選會公告當選,「其取得公職雖違法」,並非自始當然無效,所以薪資非詐欺取得云云。既然「取得公職雖違法」(居然還加個「雖」字),難道整個判決不須提到被告「取得公職雖違法」是違反哪個法、須負起什麼刑責嗎?
(作者為藥師)

瞧 黨國私法
◎ 金羽日
從李慶安雙重國籍案進入司法程序以來,我這個小市民其實早在心裡抱定了一種想法,「安啦!她會沒事的」。果然,「高院合議庭認定李慶安未涉及詐欺,也沒有利用職務詐取財物」,所以判定無罪。
李慶安何許人也?口袋中暗藏自己的雙重國籍,也可以選議員、選立委,這不叫「詐欺」,法律的認定和尋常百姓的認知顯然有很大的差異。這也不該怪她啦,因為台灣部分掌司法的「大人」本來就很有本事,只要翻翻法條,操弄一下文字,管他合不合程序,或者延宕一些時日,考驗一下小市民的記性,懸案就可以無限期地懸下去,甚至把人屈打成招、關到死都可以;較棘手的案件,要是涉及朝中官員的,要追溯到怎樣的層級更是隨意,要判死、判生都可以。
再說,人民的觀感也不能作為斷案的依據,因為大多數的人民不懂法律,真懂法律的大多很清流地選擇噤聲不語。所以我這個不懂法律、手無六法的小老百姓,看斷案如看戲。台灣有司法嗎?這是一個令人深思的問題。
(作者為高中國文老師)

Friday, August 19, 2011

黃帝穎: 特偵組豈能不依法偵辦馬英丸永久屋愚民案

 
八八重建六三三
◎ 黃帝穎

馬總統稱屏東縣泰武鄉「吾拉魯滋部落」猶如「桃花源」,並主持入住典禮,但被媒體踢爆造假,現場並未完工,也沒有居民入住,所謂的桃花源「攏係假」。

馬 總統用說謊、演戲的方式,掩飾他在「八八風災」救災與重建的無能。人民應該記憶猶新,風災發生的黃金救援時間,馬政府對「拒絕國際援助」先是否認,直到媒體出示外交部「拒絕國際援助」的公文後,馬政府才為「說謊」道歉了事。如今災後重建又造假,要居民配合演戲,可見馬政府的救災與重建「一路走來、毫無誠信」,更嚴重的是,馬總統發佈新聞稿等公文書,因為內容登載不實,已經嚴重損害公眾對公文書真實性的信賴,觸犯刑法「公務員登載不實罪」。
依 據刑法第二一三條規定,公務員明知為不實事項,登載於職掌之公文書,足生損害於公眾,處一年以上七年以下有期徒刑。馬總統雖號稱法學博士,卻知法犯法,明 知永久屋未完工,仍要以總統府發佈完工、入住的新聞稿,欺騙居民感情,也破壞公眾對於公文書的信賴,觸犯刑法「公務員登載不實罪」,「公正執法」的特偵組,豈能不依法偵辦?
(作者為律師)

Friday, August 12, 2011

秦日新犯罪情節重大
一、二審判無罪, 高院更一審認定是重罪, 改判半年

 
紅酒案更審 秦日新無罪改判半年


〔記者楊國文、陳慧萍/台北報導〕前駐斐濟代表秦日新,被控任職外交部北美司長期間,主 導以購買紅、白酒方式不實核銷外交業務管理費,一、二審雖判他無罪,但高等法院更一審認為,秦日新是以「變魔術」手法,將發票化整為零,不實核銷支出,犯罪情節重大,昨依公務員登載不實罪,改判秦一年徒刑,因適用減刑條例,減為六月徒刑,且因所犯法條是重罪,不得易科罰金;此案可上訴。
審判長斥塑造「勞績卓著」假象
高 院合議庭審判長童有德宣判時,以罕見嚴厲口吻,指責秦日新在將外派的九十四年十二月整整一個月間,對外國駐台使節等交誼毫無作為,不思改善,竟如「變魔 術」般,將閒置預算購買紅、白酒,並要求商人將發票「化整為零」,捏造宴請美國在台協會副處長葛天豪、加拿大駐台代表侯秉東等人事實,將發票作為「外交業 務管理費」之用,不實登載共十一次之多,並塑造他「勞績卓著」假象,批評對身為外交部北美司長的秦日新而言,犯罪行為已屬重大。
秦日新昨未出庭聆判,律師黃碧芬則無法連繫上,無法得知對判決結果看法或是否上訴,高檢署表示收到判決書,再決定是否上訴;另一被告前外交部北美司科長楊慶輝,已獲檢方緩起訴處分。
外交部長楊進添表示,秦日新僅是少數案例,「希望國人不要把所有外交人員當成過街老鼠」。
高 等法院是依刑法第二一三條的公文書登載不實罪,判秦日新一年徒刑,因適用減刑條例,再減為半年徒刑。不過,因此法條的法定刑是一年以上、七年以下徒刑之 罪,加上秦日新審理期間,堅稱沒有犯罪,實務上通常認定為沒有悔意,因此判決出爐後,引起法界議論紛紛。不具名的多位高院法官認為,以該適用法條論罪的 話,加上審酌秦的身分、犯後態度不佳,此判決輕了一點。某高檢署檢察官則質疑,合議庭判決時,批評秦「犯罪重大,不可等閒視之」,卻判他最低法定刑,實在 讓人看不懂。
民間司改會執行長林?正認為,判秦一年刑責不大合理,內行人都看得出有「暗助」的意味,檢察官應該會上訴最高法院才對。
高院更一審審理發現,秦日新因得知將於九十五年一月十七日派任我國駐紐西蘭代表,但九十四年度北美司「外交業務管理費」仍有廿一萬餘額,指示科長楊慶輝將廿一萬款項購買酒類,供秦赴紐西蘭上任後作為公務贈禮使用。
除昨日判決的紅酒案外,秦日新也因被控詐領眷屬補助款弊案,遭外交部停職,目前由北檢分案偵辦中。

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

International Scholars' open letter to Ma questioning LTH indictment

 
Open letter to President Ma
from 
Thomas Bartlett,
honorary research associate, history program, La Trobe University, Melbourne

Coen Blaauw,
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington

Jean Pierre Cabestan,
professor and head, Department of Government and International Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University

Gordon Chang,
author

Wen-yen Chen,
professor emeritus, University of the District of Columbia, and former president, North American Taiwanese Professors’ Association

Stephane Corcuff,
associate professor of political science, China and Taiwan studies, University of Lyon

Michael Danielsen,
chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark

June Teufel Dreyer,
professor of political science, University of Miami

Norman Getsinger,
US foreign service (retired), The George Washington University graduate program

Terri Giles,
executive director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles

Stephen Halsey,
assistant professor of history, University of Miami

Mark Harrison,
senior lecturer, head of the Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania

Michael Rand Hoare,
emeritus reader at the University of London

Christopher Hughes,
professor of international relations, London School of Economics and Political Science

Thomas Hughes,
former chief of staff to late US senator Claiborne Pell, Washington

Bruce Jacobs,
professor of Asian -languages and studies, Monash University, Melbourne

Richard Kagan,
professor emeritus of history, Hamline University, and author

Jerome Keating,
associate professor, National Taipei University (retired), and author

David Kilgour,
former member of the Canadian parliament and secretary of state for Asia-Pacific

Andre Laliberte,
professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Perry Link,
professor emeritus of East Asian Studies, Princeton University

Daniel Lynch,
associate professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California

Victor Mair,
professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Pennsylvania

The Very Reverend
Bruce McLeod,
former president, Canadian Council of Churches, and former moderator, the United Church of Canada

Donald Rodgers,
associate professor of political science, Austin College

Terence Russell,
associate professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Manitoba

Michael Scanlon,
associate professor (retired), Shih Chien University

Christian Schafferer,
associate professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute, chair of the Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, editor: Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

David Schak,
adjunct professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith University

Michael Stainton,
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto

Peter Tague,
professor of law, Georgetown University

Ross Terrill,
Fairbank Center, Harvard University, and author

Reverend Milo Thornberry,
author

John Tkacik Jr,
US foreign service (retired) and independent commentator, Washington

Arthur Waldron,
lauder professor of international relations, University of Pennsylvania

Gerrit van der Wees,
editor: Taiwan Communique, Washington

Josef Weidenholzer,
Chair, Institute of Social and Societal Policy, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria

Michael Yahuda,
professor emeritus, the London School of Economics, and visiting scholar, George Washington University

Stephen Yates,
president of DC International Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs
Dear President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九),
We the undersigned, international academics, analysts and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, have for many years been keen observers of political developments in Taiwan. We were delighted when Taiwan made its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and we continue to care deeply for the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state.
However, during the past three years, many of us have felt it necessary to address publicly our concerns to you about the erosion of justice and democracy in Taiwan, most recently in April this year regarding the charges of the “36,000 missing documents” against a number of prominent former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials. We raised these issues as international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy.
At this time we express our deep concern about the charges against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), often referred to as “the father of Taiwan’s democracy,” who was indicted on June 30 on charges of allegedly channeling US$7.8 million from secret diplomatic funds into the Taiwan Research Institute. These charges and their timing raise a number of questions that are related both to the case itself and the integrity of the judicial system in Taiwan.
First, why did the prosecutors decide to pursue these charges at this time? The events allegedly occurred in the years 1994 and 1995, about 16 years ago. We have difficulty believing that prosecutors discovered evidence only recently, particularly in view of the fact that key evidence cited by the prosecutors was dismissed by a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 in a case involving former National Security Bureau chief accountant Hsu Ping-chiang (徐炳強), who was charged in connection with the missing diplomatic funds. Are these charges perhaps more directly related to the former president’s outspokenness on current political issues, and in particular to the upcoming presidential election?
The second issue is one of evenhandedness: The problem with the administration of secret diplomatic funds appears to be systemic, primarily because of the lack of transparency associated with the funds and vague guidelines for their use. Hence, if the former president is now charged, should fairness not demand that there be investigations, and charges, against other high officials who served at the same time, such as the vice president, premier and provincial governor, who had similar discretionary funds available to them?
The third issue relates to the impartiality of the judicial system. Since November 2008, there have been a number of indictments and charges against former DPP officials and others who were and are critical of your government. The case against Lee appears to be part of a deeply disturbing trend to use the judiciary against political opponents. While there is an obvious need to uphold the law in a democracy, this needs to be done fairly and evenhandedly, with no hint or appearance of any partiality.
Mr President, as head of state you bear overall responsibility for the state of affairs in Taiwan. In democratic systems, proper checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches are of the utmost importance. The executive and the legislative branches have a responsibility to exercise oversight and to balance activism in the judiciary, just as the judiciary serves a similar role with regard to the executive and legislative branches. Stating that your government abides by “judicial independence” is therefore not enough. It is essential that all participants in the judicial process — prosecutors, judges and lawyers — are fully imbued with the basic principle that the judiciary is scrupulously impartial and not given to any partisan preferences.

We, as members of the international academic community, are left with the impression that the indictments and practices of the judiciary in Taiwan over the past three years reflect a judicial system that is increasingly influenced by political considerations. There has been a regression in the accomplishments of Taiwan’s momentous democratization of the 1990s and 2000s. As good friends of Taiwan, we are deeply unsettled by this. It undermines Taiwan’s international image as a free and democratic nation.
Mr President, we therefore urge you and your government to ensure that the judicial system is held to the highest standards of objectivity and fairness. Taiwan has many challenges ahead of it and it cannot afford the political divisions created by the use of the judicial system for political purposes.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas Bartlett,
honorary research associate, history program, La Trobe University, Melbourne
Coen Blaauw,
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
Jean Pierre Cabestan,
professor and head, Department of Government and International Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University
Gordon Chang,
author
Wen-yen Chen,
professor emeritus, University of the District of Columbia, and former president, North American Taiwanese Professors’ Association
Stephane Corcuff,
associate professor of political science, China and Taiwan studies, University of Lyon
Michael Danielsen,
chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
June Teufel Dreyer,
professor of political science, University of Miami
Norman Getsinger,
US foreign service (retired), The George Washington University graduate program
Terri Giles,
executive director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
Stephen Halsey,
assistant professor of history, University of Miami
Mark Harrison,
senior lecturer, head of the Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania
Michael Rand Hoare,
emeritus reader at the University of London
Christopher Hughes,
professor of international relations, London School of Economics and Political Science
Thomas Hughes,
former chief of staff to late US senator Claiborne Pell, Washington
Bruce Jacobs,
professor of Asian -languages and studies, Monash University, Melbourne
Richard Kagan,
professor emeritus of history, Hamline University, and author
Jerome Keating,
associate professor, National Taipei University (retired), and author
David Kilgour,
former member of the Canadian parliament and secretary of state for Asia-Pacific
Andre Laliberte,
professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
Perry Link,
professor emeritus of East Asian Studies, Princeton University
Daniel Lynch,
associate professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
Victor Mair,
professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Pennsylvania
The Very Reverend
Bruce McLeod,
former president, Canadian Council of Churches, and former moderator, the United Church of Canada
Donald Rodgers,
associate professor of political science, Austin College
Terence Russell,
associate professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Manitoba
Michael Scanlon,
associate professor (retired), Shih Chien University
Christian Schafferer,
associate professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute, chair of the Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, editor: Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
David Schak,
adjunct professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith University
Michael Stainton,
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto
Peter Tague,
professor of law, Georgetown University
Ross Terrill,
Fairbank Center, Harvard University, and author
Reverend Milo Thornberry,
author
John Tkacik Jr,
US foreign service (retired) and independent commentator, Washington
Arthur Waldron,
lauder professor of international relations, University of Pennsylvania
Gerrit van der Wees,
editor: Taiwan Communique, Washington
Josef Weidenholzer,
Chair, Institute of Social and Societal Policy, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria
Michael Yahuda,
professor emeritus, the London School of Economics, and visiting scholar, George Washington University
Stephen Yates,
president of DC International Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs