I don’t know any politicians personally, and honestly, the only one I’ve met in person and spent time in a meeting room with is Zhu Lilun. So, all I can base my opinions on are the actions and statements they made publicly, and not some insider knowledge.
From my perspective, there’s nothing that CSB said or pursued that TYW didn’t do the same. The only thing that made TYW a much better statesman is the fact that she has the support of a DPP majority in the Legislative Yuan for both her terms. She got that support mostly thanks to Xi Jinping’s authoritarian power grab, and ruthless crackdown of Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
Many of Tsai’s most lauded accomplishments, even her most disliked policies, are just following what CSB tried and failed to achieve.
I was too young when he was president. I know he’s not popular at all, but I can say with certainty that a lot of the Taiwanisation/De-sinitisation effort began during CSB’s terms which, as we can see, has been a game changer in Taiwan’s political landscape and society at large. One can argue that some of Tsai’s achievements so far could only have been accomplished because Chen did the work before.
I agree with the rest, but CSB was very popular. He was working against a KMT that still had their ill-gotten party assets, mostly KMT/China controlled media, and a China that’s just becoming more and more wealthy, and he still won twice.
All those factors, plus the charisma of Ma Yingjiu let to DPP losing. Serious allegations of corruption only began to surface after Ma got elected, and the court had to do some logical gymnastics to get CSB convicted, despite all evidence points to his wife alone. They were trying so hard to get CSB convicted, they even forced the heir of China Trust Bank to give false confessions to implicate CSB. Something Jeffery Ku Jr. only revealed after taking exile in Japan for 5 years.
Well, I’m glad he was able to help persuade Lee Teng-hui in the 1990s to ensure the White Terror sites on Green Island didn’t get demolished. Keeping those sites intact is a social good.
But “moral authority”? Let’s just say the stories I’ve heard paint a different picture.
Chen put up with some BS from the US during his terms, but Tsai has had to deal with the chaos of Trump and the malevolence of Xi—and to her great credit she has done so without blinking.
Based on conversations I had with the Canadian diplomatic corps during the Chen terms, Chen’s maneovering style did not build much trust and in fact had the opposite effect (i.e. saying he’d do one thing, then veering off and doing another).
That could mean different things. My impression from the time was that he had recently served a long time in jail for the cause, and his voice was respected.
The court couldn’t find any evidence and had to invent “substantive influence” as the reason to convict Chen. I suppose other than your personal dislike for CSB, you have actual evidence to prove otherwise then?
No, it was much more than that at the time. He got jailed for years at a time when that was a real fact of dissent here. Things didn’t change overnight.
True as it may be. Chen was avery necessary tool in the grand scheme. I think its also good he was jailed. I love he existed to set the stage goin forward. I think it is goid his corrupt ass was jailed. Frankly ,more higher politicians should be jailed. As we say in pingtung, seems every town leader grows up, gets arrested and comes back stronger. Rinse and repeat.
I agree Tsai can do this in part because Chen laid some ground work. Still waiting for some Ma cronies to be jailed though…guess we know where the juice is.
Apparently the invented “substantive influence” charge doesn’t apply to KMT members.
Last year there’s a huge debate in the judicial system, some are arguing going forward all corruption cases should use “substantive influence” as the basis, and if that’s the case, Li Yi-shih and other Ma cronies will get harsher punishments, and let’s see how far they can trace it back to the source.
Since Chen was granted medical parole, his health has improved.
He hosts a weekly interview show, recently published his memoirs and has enjoyed a small resurgence of popularity with young people who follow his posting of surrealist memes on Instagram.
However, he is still deprived of basic human and civil rights. He is required to request leave and report on his daily activities.
Bearing over him is the unlikely, but still present peril of being sent back to prison.
Perhaps the greatest injustice to Chen is that his medical parole time does not count toward his sentence of nearly 20 years.
If this time is included, Chen has already had his rights deprived for almost 16 years, and he lacks the consolation of knowing when his sentence might end.
The broader issue standing in the way of a pardon for Chen is the fragile peace in the Taiwan Strait. While Chen was president, his campaigns such as pushing for a referendum for Taiwan to join the UN were anathema to Beijing and Washington.
As such, a pardon might seem to be outweighed by the potential of needlessly provoking China.
However, the Omelas analogy is not precise. No serious analyst would claim that freeing Chen would threaten the peace and democracy that prevails in Taiwan.
The principle that a pardon would uphold is that Taiwan has chosen self-determination and mercy over the interests of imperial powers, political calculation and retribution.
Chen, the “son of Taiwan,” should have his freedom restored to be among everyday people in his homeland as a citizen with full rights.
