By Hu Shuli

From the Caijing Magazine

A Taipei court ordered Chen Shui-bian taken into custody November 12 on charges of money laundering with family members and embezzling “secret diplomatic funds.” The former “president” of Taiwan thus became prisoner No. 2630, attracting worldwide media attention. (See related reports in this edition of Caijing.) A defiant Chen raised his handcuffed wrists for photographers, launched a hunger strike and refused medication.

Now, Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are looking past the Chen spectacle to reflect on the significance of the case in forging rule of law.

Since 2006, suspicions that Chen and his relatives were involved in embezzlement and bribe-taking were reported in the media, riveting attention on the mainland as well as Taiwan. The scandal that initially amounted to about NT$ 14 .8 million (about US$ 448,500) did not disappear after Chen left office. This past summer, a Swiss federal prosecutor asked Taiwan authorities to cooperate in investigating the Chen family’s overseas accounts. The news media quickly reported the request, and the sum of money involved grew to hundreds of millions of Taiwan dollars. The probe exposed not only intricate links between politicians and business people, but also charges of power abuse by the director of the investigation bureau, who allegedly leaked sensitive information, and the use of a slush fund for foreign relations.

The breadth and depth of the scandals were astounding. Even mainland observers familiar with high-level corruption found the inside stories and sordid details shocking.

The Chen case is thought-provoking in many respects. For example, it shows that Taiwan’s democracy is still relatively young. The scandal emerged after an election, and it showed how a leader’s power can grow more corrupt over time when unchecked by effective oversight or warnings. The discovery and subsequent investigation over the past two years has been a serious test of the independent judiciary and the system of checks and balances in Taiwan.

Under cross-examination by prosecutors, Chen displayed the shrewdness of a master politician. He alternated between evasion and innuendo by saying, for example, that “an explanation is helpless for political case”, while later promising to “bare it to all to the Taiwanese people during an open trial.” Now, as the drama unfolds, people on both sides of the strait and even international observers will be able to judge whether the trial is fair, if the process stands up to public scrutiny, if the prosecution and judicial functions are well delineated, and if the public’s right to know is honored.

Regardless, the process is special for Chinese around the world. When a former leader is detained in an ordinary jail cell, it’s clear that China’s old feudal saying that “punishment reaches no officials” is no longer valid. No individual and no party can be above the law. This is the essence of rule of law.

The Chen case also reflects how the judiciary exercises power and oversight. While probing the allegations, Taiwan’s prosecutors came under criticism in some quarters for being subject to political interference. Other critics faulted them for “an inadequate response” to the allegations. To the system’s credit, different viewpoints were expressed through appropriate channels. It’s best not to muffle critics. The news media played an important role in helping the public understand the case while providing a forum for opinion. A so-called “trial by press” or “lynch-mob court” can be avoided by letting rule of law guide pluralistic opinions. Self-restraint in the process reflects a maturing democratic society.

The cover-up of huge, secret overseas accounts that the Chen family allegedly maintained for eight years has prompted the Taiwanese government and the public to scrutinize the country’s Law for Property Disclosure by Public Officials. They may seek a revision and look into new legislation that criminalizes the use of dubious income by public officials.

Taiwan’s Law for Personal Assets Disclosure by Public Officials, effective since 1993, applies to officials from the government’s top echelons to village levels who must file periodic asset reports. Results are posted on the Internet. The scope, however, is rather narrow and officials are not required to disclose income sources. Moreover, the penalty for an omission -- up to NT$ 4 million (about US$ 125,000) -- is too low. New anti-corruption regulations were proposed in September that would shift the burden of proving income sources to officials in question from prosecutors, and require prison sentences of up to three years for non-disclosure. And since October, the country’s lawmakers have been amending the law to extend its application to directors and inspectors on the boards of public enterprises.

To be sure, the law itself is inadequate. But the current search for improvements and amendments is significant as well as timely. Disclosure of personal assets by public officials is an internationally recognized system for checking corruption.

Lessons for assessing the effectiveness of these laws can be learned. On the mainland, the Communist Party and the State Council promulgated in 1995 regulations for disclosing the incomes of party and government officials above the county level. They did likewise in 2001 with regulations on reporting family assets by provincial cadres. In April, when former Shanghai party secretary Chen Liangyu was convicted, we urged the government to enact a sunshine law to remedy deficiencies in existing regulations. The Chen case highlights the urgency of such action.

At the same time, the Chen case underscores the progress made in judicial awareness, as well as in making and implementing laws to transform “rule of man” and finally replace it with rule of law. A legal system that applies equally to all is the right way to rectify the abuses of rule of man.

Mainlanders watching the Chen case unfold from across the Taiwan Strait may not fully understand the mixed feelings of Taiwanese compatriots toward their former “president,” who now faces possible conviction. From this point on, let’s hope empathy and thoughtful reflection among Chinese on both sides of the strait can help us press on, together, toward a bright future.