What is the rationale calling for the release of ex-Taiwanese leader?

By China Watcher

On Saturday, the Democratic Progressive Party which is now in Opposition called for the immediate release of ex-Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian while he appeals against his conviction on graft charges. Last Friday, he was sentenced to prison for life for being convicted of embezzling state funds, laundering money and accepting bribes of around US$28 million.

What is the justification for the release of a rogue President?

Just because he was a former President or that he truly fought for Taiwanese independence. He was actually pandering to the Western agenda to “break up” China to create a position in which a convergence of Chinese conglomerate would be less threatening to Western continued dominance. It is also obvious that the hordes of WESTERN human right activists and the bunch of supporters are behind the charade.

US$28 million is not a small amount in Asian societies. Maybe, in the West the amount is considered insignificant.

Most WESTERN so called experts are now questioning the fairness of the legal system in Taiwan. These people are not stakeholders in the prosperity and unity of the Chinese people. They are merely outsiders who will have no bearing if the Taiwanese political or economic system did not meet up to the expectation of the Western judicial standards.

To these people or the West “white-based” societies, the legal system in non-Western countries are subjected to many irregularities and inadequate “check and balances” that would cast suspicion on the fairness of the trial. That is why historically in circumstance where a foreign national from the so-called advanced nation was passed judgment in an Asian Court, you can almost tell from the faces of its relatives, friends that it is not fair even after so many witnesses were called to testify. In the mind of a Western person, a judge of Asian origin is just not capable to adjudge a person who comes from a place where there is democracy and there is respect for individual freedom.

The case demonstrated to the world that nobody is above the law and that the conviction indicated that there is progress in a civil society dictated strongly by law. The fact that he was not charged while he was a President for two terms even though there were evidences pointing to many wrongdoings was because of his immunity status for being the most powerful person in Taiwan during that time.

I am very sure that the government’s prosecutor would have double checked all the facts of the case, which is subjected to questioning by the legal team of the ex-President if it is not proper or irregular during the trial.

Most Asian commentators were of the view that the Taiwan's judicial system is undergoing a transformation which had already reached a respectable standard as compared to most emerging Asian countries and personally, I think that there is already a certain measure of fairness. The above suspicion appearances without political bias as proclaimed by the West do not even exist in the true sense in Western societies.

Taiwanese legal system allows a convicted person an automatic appeal if it is a life sentence. If the opposition and their Western supporters think the process is unfair then the appeal avenue is a viable platform for them to seek redress but it must be devoid of any Western interference and pressures.

But the system is such that he must be detained and not release as called upon by the opposition and their independence seeking supporters.

From a survey of the Taiwanese public, 50 percent said the verdict proved Taiwan's judicial independence and only 25 percent considered it a political persecution.

I fully disagree with the Western perception that the verdict has divided the island 23 million people which to the contrary has strengthened the people’s resolve to ensure that the Taiwanese legal process takes it full course for person who breaks Taiwanese regulations and statutes.