傅佩芬律師寫信給 Prof. Dr. Riedel 籲請營救陳水扁
傅佩芬: 2013年2月24日將有一個人權考察團應(台灣)政府之邀要去台考察人權情形。
其中一位是教過我的德國教授 Prof. Dr. Riedel。我和德國臺灣協會會長各擬了一封信
寄給他。2013/2/13
其中一位是教過我的德國教授 Prof. Dr. Riedel。我和德國臺灣協會會長各擬了一封信
寄給他。2013/2/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Februar 2013
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Riedel,
mein Name ist Pey-Fen Fuh. Ich komme aus Taiwan.
(.....)
Durch die Presse und durch Frau Müller-Wollermann von
amnesty international habe ich erfahren, dass Sie bald Taiwan, meine Heimat,
besuchen werden, um dort die Menschenrechtssituation zu untersuchen und zu
begutachten. Ich habe mich persönlich sehr gefreut, Ihren Namen wieder gehört
zu haben, insbesondere in diesem Zusammenhang.
Als Taiwanerin im Ausland bin
ich über die immer schlechter werdende Menschenrechtssituation in meiner Heimat
besorgter als je zuvor. Schweren Herzens habe ich Ihnen einen Brief
geschrieben, den ich dieser Email beifüge. Beigefügt ist auch der Brief meiner
Freundin, Frau Liu, der Vorsitzenden des Taiwan-Vereins, an Sie.
Ich habe nie gedacht, dass wir
- nach über 20 Jahren "Demokratie und Freiheit" in Taiwan - wieder
gegen die Menschenrechtsverletzungen kämpfen müssen und gar internationale
Unterstützungen dringend benötigen werden.
Ich würde mich freuen, wenn
Sie meinen Brief durchlesen und meine Anliegen nachvollziehen könnten.
Insbesondere würde ich mich sehr freuen, wenn Sie unseren Wunsch
berücksichtigen könnten und sich für Herrn Chen Shui-Bian - und somit auch für
die anderen Gefangenen in Taiwan - einsetzen könnten.
Gerne stehen wir Ihnen für ein
persönliches Gespräch und für weitere Informationen bzw. Unterstützungen zur
Verfügung. Über Ihre Rückmeldung freuen wir sehr!
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Pey-Fen Fuh
Rechtsanwältin (RK Frankfurt am Main)
LL.M. (Marburg)
LL.B. (National Taiwan University)
===========================================================
1
Menschenrechtsverletzung in Taiwan
Dringende Appelle zur Rettung des ehemaligen Präsidenten Chen Shui-Bian
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Riedel,
durch die Presse und durch Frau Müller-Wollermann von amnesty international haben wir
erfahren, dass Sie bald Taiwan, unsere Heimat, besuchen werden, um dort die
Menschenrechtssituation zu untersuchen und zu begutachten.
Als Taiwanesen im Ausland sind wir über die immer schlechter werdende
Menschenrechtssituation in unserer Heimat besorgter als je zuvor. Insbesondere sehen wir
zwei wichtige Grundrechte in schwerwiegender Weise gefährdet:
Die Presse- / Meinungsfreiheit und das Recht der Angeklagten / Angeschuldigten.
Nachfolgend möchten wir unsere Besorgnis ausdrücken. Damit hoffen und appellieren wir
dringend:
• Bitte gehen Sie - als international anerkannter Wissenschaftler und
Menschenrechtsexperten - den geschilderten Sachverhalten nach;
• Bitte dokumentieren Sie die Wahrheit über die Menschenrechtsverletzungen in
Taiwan;
• Bitte bringen Sie die Problematik an die Weltöffentlichkeit.
Insbesondere appellieren wir an Sie:
• Bitte besuchen Sie unseren ehemaligen Präsidenten Chen Shui-Bian, der zurzeit
wegen schlechter Haftbedingungen lebensbedrohlich erkrankt im Krankenhaus zur
Behandlung ist und dennoch davor steht , wieder ins Gefängnis zurück geschickt zu
werden.
Um den Rahmen nicht zu sprengen, möchten wir nur eine kurze Darstellung (ohne Zitate und
nicht immer mit Quellen versehen) über die von uns beobachteten
Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den zwei Gebieten schildern. Im Anhang finden Sie eine
Liste von taiwanesischen Menschenrechtlern sowie einige Literatur zu den hier aufgeführten
Themen (Anhang 2-5). Wir sind jederzeit gerne bereit, Ihnen die Quellen und weitere
Informationen zu nennen.
Zur Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit:
Bekanntermaßen ist Taiwan ein gespaltenes Land mit zum Teil sehr polarisierten Ansichten:
für die Vereinigung mit China oder dagegen, eine an sich völlig normale Situation in einem
demokratischen Land mit vielfältigen Meinungen. Leider sind die Demokratie und diese
Meinungsvielfalt in den letzten Jahren durch die Konzentrierung der Massenmedien auf
2
wenige Pro-China-Konzerne (wie z. B. „Want Want China Times Media Group“ von Herrn
Tsai Yan-Ming) schwer gefährdet. Ein jüngstes Beispiel ist der Anteilsverkauf der
Konzerngruppe Next Media (壹傳媒 „Yi Chuan Mei“) an Herrn Tsai Yan-Ming. Durch den
Anteilserwerb wird sich fast 50% des Marktanteils an Tageszeitungen in Taiwan in der Hand
von Herrn Tsai Yan-Ming befinden. Die Massenmedien in Taiwan, also die Presse sowie die
sich bereits in seinem Besitz befindlichen Fernsehsender, werden von Herrn Tsai sowie der
Interessegruppe hinten ihm monopoliert und manipuliert!
Unsere Regierung ignoriert nicht nur diese Tatsache, die in den meisten demokratischen,
freiheitlichen Gesellschaften als eine der schwersten Verstöße gegen den freien Wettbewerb
angesehen werden dürfte. Sie verteidigt dies gar im Namen der freien Marktwirtschaft!
Das Recht der Angeklagten / Angeschuldigten (Fall des Präsidenten Chen):
Eine schwerwiegende Art der Menschenrechtsverletzung im Bereich der Justiz geschah und
geschieht fast jeden Tag in Taiwan, in einem Land, das von Deutschland fast alle wichtigen,
strafprozessrechtlichen Theorien wie die Unschuldsvermutung, das Recht auf den
gesetzlichen Richter und „nulla poena sine lege“ rezipiert hat. Die Rezeption der Theorien
erfolgt aber eben nur „theoretisch“.
Die Folter und die Anwendung anderer Zwänge sind nicht abwesend in der Tagespraxis in
Taiwan. Bei nahezu allen Ermittlungen wird die Untersuchungshaft willkürlich verordnet und
häufig zudem in unverhältnismäßiger Weise (Beispiele folgen noch). Die Dauer der
Untersuchungshaft kann während der Ermittlungen zwei Monate und während des
Gerichtsprozesses drei Monaten betragen. Verlängerung der Untersuchungshaft ist möglich
und wird fast immer praktiziert. Zunehmend wird auch beobachtet, dass die strafrechtliche
Verfolgung (z. B. wegen angeblicher Korruption) als Rache oder „Erziehungsmaßnahmen“
gegen politische Gegner genutzt wurde, um deren Ruf zu schädigen und deren Person zu
ruinieren. Zu kritisieren ist insbesondere auch, dass die Todstrafe nicht selten deshalb
ausgeführt wird, um Popularität zu gewinnen oder um die Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit
von einem bestimmten Ereignisses abzulenken. Es wurde berichtet, dass die Hinrichtung
von sechs zum Tode Verurteilten im Dezember 2012 deshalb vollstreckt wurde, um die
Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit von einem geheimen Treffen des Justizministers Zeng
Yong-Fu mit einem in Korruptionsverdacht geratenen Politiker abzulenken.
Am prominentesten und viel beachtet in den letzten Jahren ist die Anklage und Verurteilung
des ehemaligen Präsidenten Herrn Chen Shui-Bian.1 Die schwerwiegenden Verstöße
gegen den Grundsatz „fair Trial“ in diesem Fall sind Folgende:
• Präsident Chen saß vor der Verurteilung länger als 118 Tage in Untersuchungshaft.
Die Begründungen für die Untersuchungshaft umfassen unter anderem „Interview bei
der Presse“, „Verfassen von Artikeln“, „Als Präsident kennt er den Fluchtweg gut“.
• Nachdem ein Richter (Chou Chang-Chun 周占春) die Untersuchungshaft für nicht
erforderlich entschieden hatte und den Präsidenten Chen ohne Kaution freigelassen
hatte, wurde dieser Richter ausgewechselt. Schließlich wurde der Prozess mit einem
1
Mehrere
Artikel
wurden
zu
diesem
Fall
verfasst.
Wir
fügen
als
Beispiel
den
Artikel
von
Herrn
Prof.
Dr.
Cohen
als
Anhang
1
bei.
3
anderen Prozess verbunden und einem anderen Richter, Herrn Tsai Shou-Hsu （蔡
守訓）, zur Bearbeitung abgegeben. Dieser Vorgang hat gegen den praktizierten
Grundsatz der Aktenverteilung im Taipei Local Court (§§ 10 und 43) und mithin
gegen den Grundsatz des gesetzlichen Richters verstoßen2.
• Der Richter Tsai, Shou-Hsu（蔡守訓）, der zuvor in einem anderen Verfahren (Fall
„Sonderausgaben des Oberbürgermeisters“, „首長特支費“) gegen den jetzigen
Präsidenten Ma (KMT) mit fast identischem Sachverhalt diesen freigesprochen hatte,
hat in dem Verfahren gegen den ehemaligen Präsidenten Chen Shui-Bian (Fall
„Ausgaben des Präsidenten für vertrauliche Staatsangelegenheiten“, „總統國務機要
費“) ihn zu lebenslänglicher Haft verurteilt.
• Der eine Beweis, der gegen Chen in einem Verfahren angeführt wurde, basierte – so
lautet die Aussage des Zeugen (馬永成) im Gerichtsprotokoll – auf dessen
Vermutung. Der andere Zeuge （辜仲諒） hatte im Nachhinein ausgesagt, dass er
auf Veranlassung der Staatsanwaltschaft falsche Aussagen gemacht hat.
• Auf den Videoaufnahmen, die bei der Befragung der Zeugen gemacht wurden, sind
an mehreren Stellen Drohungen und Zwänge durch die Ermittler festzustellen.
Darüber hinaus wurde der Präsident Chen (bis zu seiner Überstellung ins Krankenhaus) im
Gefängnis auf eine (von einer Zivilgesellschaft) unvorstellbare Weise unmenschlich und
erniedrigend behandelt:
• Der Präsident Chen wurde in Einzelhaft untergebracht. Seine Zelle ist 5 qm groß.
Das Zimmer hat eine offene Toilette (also keine Trennung). Er hat kein Bett, keinen
Tisch und auch keine Stuhl. Seit 4 Jahren schlief er auf dem Boden. Zum Schreiben
oder Essen lag bzw. saß er auf dem Fußboden. Seine Zelle wurde 24 Stunden rund
um die Uhr gefilmt, auch beim Toilettengang. Erst nach stärker werdendem Protest
aus der Öffentlichkeit hat er einen Tisch und einen Stuhl erhalten.
• Mit der Begründung der Sicherheitsbedenken konnte er nicht – wie andere
Gefangenen – an den Aktivitäten außerhalb der Zelle teilnehmen. Auch hier erreichte
erst starker Protest aus der Öffentlichkeit, dass Präsident Chen jeden Tag eine
Stunde ans Tageslicht darf.
• Jedes Mal, wenn Präsident Chen vom Gericht zurückkam und die Zelle wiederbetrat,
musste er sich komplett ausziehen. Die Untersuchung umfasste standardmäßig auch
das Geschlechtsteil und den Anus3.
2
Die
Grandrichterin
des
Verfassungsgerichts
Taiwan,
Chen
Yu-‐Hsiu
(陳玉秀,
promoviert
an
der
Uni.
Freiburg)
hat
ein
Sodervotum
zur
Grandrichterlichen
Verfassungsauslegung
Nr.
665
in
diesem
Thema
verfasst
und
die
Richterin
Hong
Ying-‐Hua
(洪英花)
an
dem
Shi-‐Lin
Local
Court
hat
sehr
viele
Artikel
zu
diesem
Fall
veröffentlicht.
3
Zheng,
Zheng-‐Yu
(鄭正煜)
,
„Anus-‐Untersuchung
beim
Präsidenten
Chen“
in:
Law
Violation
by
Tsai
Shou-‐Hsu,
Hrsg.
Taiwan
Hakka
Verein,
S.
25.
4
• Aufgrund der schlechten Haftbedingungen leidet derzeit Herr Präsident Chen an
mehreren schweren Krankheiten: Schwierigkeiten beim Sprechen, Atmen-Aussetzer
bei Schlafen, schwere Depressionen, Verfolgungswahn sowie Verdacht auf
Parkinson.
• Auf die Kritik gegen die erniedringende und unmenschliche Behandlung des
Präsidenten Chen antwortete das Justizministerium mit der Veröffentlichung seiner
Haftbedingungen auf der Website des Justizministreriums unter „The Treatment of
Former President Chen Shui-bian at Taipei Prison“. Dabei verteidigt das
Justizminsterium die Mißhandlung mit der Rechtfertigung, die Behandlung des
ehemaligen Präsidenten sei gleich wie oder gar besser als die anderen Gefangenen!
Zurzeit ist Herr Präsident Chen im Krankhaus zur Behandlung. Trotz seines schlimmen
Zustandes und nationaler sowie internationaler Appelle erwägt die Regierung von Ma, ihn
wieder ins Gefängnis zurückzuschicken. Bisher verweigert ihm der amtierende Präsident Ma
die Bewährung zur ärztlichen Behandlung.
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Riedel, wir hoffen sehr, dass durch Ihren Besuch das Thema
„Menschenrechte“ eine verstärkte Beachtung in Taiwan findet. Als von der Regierung
bestellter Gutachter haben Sie besseren Zugang zu dem Material als die normale
taiwanesische Bevölkerung. Als prominenter Wissenschaftler mit internationalem Ansehen
und langjähriger Tätigkeit im Bereich Menschenrechte können Sie tiefer in die Widersprüche
und in die Verwirrungen blicken.
Werden Sie unsere Augen. Werden Sie unser Gehör. Zeigen Sie unseren Landsleuten die
Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit auf, auch wenn es weh tut.
Für Ihren Einsatz bedanken wir uns herzlich im Voraus.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Pey-Fen Fuh
Rechtsanwältin (RK Frankfurt am Main)
LL.M. (Marburbg)
LL.B. (National Taiwan University)
5
Anlage 1
South China Morning Post, Thursday, January 08, 2009
Jerome Cohen, New York
When analysing the experience of the US Supreme Court, the late Charles Evans Hughes
(chief justice 1930-39) commented: "The gravest wounds are self-inflicted." Taiwan's courts
should reflect on that wisdom.
The prosecution of former president Chen Shui-bian has not even come to trial. Yet his
judges have already bungled the historic opportunity Chen's case presents for the judiciary to
confirm its independence, impartiality and competence.
The vibrant democracy for which so many in Taiwan have struggled is in trouble. Corruption
threatens the integrity of the political system. This cancer cannot be controlled without a
credible, fair and transparent judicial system to enforce the law.
Following Chen's November 11 arrest, despite the deep political divisions and partisan
suspicions of Taiwanese society, the prosecution's detailed allegations of massive corruption
by Chen, his family and colleagues had prepared the public to accept the prospect of their
guilt and punishment.
Their convictions after proceedings perceived to be fair would vindicate the values of clean
government, deter potential wrongdoers and heighten confidence in courts that began to free
themselves from decades of authoritarian Kuomintang government fewer than 20 years ago.
Unfortunately, recent court proceedings have mocked that promise. Unless some
unexpected, bold action restores public confidence, convictions of Chen and his associates
will enhance popular cynicism and deny the courts the broad support required by any
successful judiciary.
What happened? Chinese have traditionally emphasised substantive criminal law - guilt or
innocence - rather than procedure. Yet, recent events, reflecting Taiwan's gradual transition
from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, focused attention on two related sets of
criminal process issues: pre-trial detention and the merger of separate prosecutions.
The battle between Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun's three-judge panel - which
twice took the unusual step of ordering Chen's release without bail, pending trial - and
Taiwan's High Court - which twice reversed that decision - only ended when the case against
the Chen group, originally assigned by lot to Judge Chou's panel, was merged into the earlier
prosecution of Chen's wife for embezzling special state funds. That case is being handled by
Judge Tsai Shou-hsun's panel.
The transfer made it possible for Judge Tsai to preside over Chen's third post-indictment
detention hearing. His panel ordered Chen's return to detention, in a decision that
contradicted the spirit of the Council of Grand Justices' Interpretation No653, issued several
days earlier. The interpretation eloquently emphasised that the criminally accused should
only be detained when no other measures suffice.
Although this time Chen is not being handcuffed and held incommunicado, as he was for 32
days before indictment, any conversations with visiting family and even his lawyers can be
monitored and used as evidence against him, and them!
6
Detained defendants are obviously hampered in preparing their defence in other ways, such
as by discussing the case with co-defendants and witnesses, which was one of the
prosecution's two main fears if Chen remained free pending trial. The other is that, if
released, Chen might flee Taiwan. Judge Tsai could have released Chen under high bail and
residential restrictions that made flight unlikely. Chen's incentive to flee will increase if he is
convicted at trial. Does this mean he will continue to be detained if he appeals against any
conviction? This would mean incarceration for years before final conviction.
At what point does the presumption of innocence become meaningless and pre-conviction
detention morph into punishment for a crime not finally proved?
The dilemmas of a defendant's detention before final conviction plague every country. More
distinctive to Taiwan are the unresolved mysteries surrounding the recent merger of the
Chen group's case into the embezzlement case brought against his wife in 2006 - a time
when Chen, although involved, still enjoyed presidential immunity from prosecution.
If such a merger was necessary, why was it not effected when the indictment against the
Chen group was issued? Instead, the district court decided that the new indictment, which
featured money-laundering and other complex charges - plus the earlier embezzlement
charge against Chen - should be assigned to a separate judicial panel by lottery.
The lottery was limited to the few panels deemed more specialised than Judge Tsai's for
dealing with complex financial transactions. How, then, can the court justify the subsequent
assignment to Judge Tsai? Can the random assignment of cases essential to judicial
neutrality be so easily circumvented?
According to the court's official press releases, assignment to Judge Tsai by the court's
merger review panel followed court rules. Yet that review process could only be initiated by
request of the judge in charge of the later case. Why did Judge Chou make that request?
Was he pressured to do so? Why did the review panel not accept his proposal to transfer to
Judge Tsai only that part of the group indictment relating to the embezzlement case against
Chen and his wife, leaving the more complex accusations to Judge Chou's panel, as the
court originally intended? Why did the review panel consist of merely five of the relevant
criminal division chiefs? Why did the merger issue only become salient after the second time
Judge Chou ordered Chen's release? Was this entire non-transparent process the court's
response to angry public criticism of Judge Chou? Did any politician intimidate the court with
secret threats?
Answers to such questions will eventually emerge. More immediately, is there any way to
guarantee the Chen group and the public a judicial process that will have both the
appearance and the reality of justice?
Why doesn't Judge Tsai, who reportedly did not want to take on the new case, withdraw from
handling all but the earlier embezzlement charges against the Chens? Then the district court
can return to its original intent and again select by lot a judicial panel of financial specialists
to deal with the complex accusations of the new case.
The new panel might even approve another application for Chen's release pending trial, with
high bail and strict residential restrictions. Then both trials could proceed with broad public
support. Justice, as the saying goes, must not only be done, but must also be seen to be
done. That is the price of judicial legitimacy.
Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
7
Anhang 2
November 4, 2008 in Taipei Times
JOINT STATEMENT US , European and Australian scholars and writers
express concern about prosecutions in Taiwan
The undersigned, scholars and writers from the US , Europe and Australia wish to express
their deep concern about the recent series of detentions in Taiwan of present and former
DPP government officials. To date there have
been at least seven such cases (See list below).
以下聯署的國際學者對於近日台灣政府一連串拘留 卸任與現任民進黨政府官員的行動,深表憂
慮。直至今 日,據我們瞭解共有七件類似案件。
It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan , but these have occurred in
both political camps. The political neutrality of the judicial system is an essential element in a
democracy. It is also essential that any accused are considered innocent until proven guilty
in the court of law.
很明顯的,貪污這個問題在台灣依然存在,但是這樣 的案例在兩大政黨裡均曾發生。司法系統維
持政治中立 是民主的基本要素。堅持任何被指控者在裁定有罪前均 是無罪的法律理念也是必
要的。
We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor's offices are severely flawed:
while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held
incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas
corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law.
我們認為檢察官所採取的法律程序有著嚴重的缺失: 雖然當一、兩位被指控者已被正式起訴時,
大多數被指 控者卻在未被正式起訴情況之下就遭到收押禁見。這嚴 重違反了人身保護令以及
正當法律程序、公義與法治。
In the meantime, the prosecutor’s offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press.
This kind of “trial by press” is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also
gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang authorities are using the judicial system to
get even with members of the former DPP government. In addition, the people who are being
held incommunicado are of course unable to defend themselves against the misreporting
and the leaks in the news media.
在此同時,檢察官辦公室很明顯地將相關不利消息透 露給媒體。這種「透過媒體辦案」的方式
違反司法程序 的基本標準;也讓外界認為國民黨政府利用司法系統來 報復已下台的民進黨政府
。此外,被收押禁見的人,在 與外界斷絕聯繫的情況下,無法澄清外界不實報導與媒 體洩密。
We do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open
manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan `s efforts
to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.
我們深信任何宣稱的犯罪行為應該以公正與公開的方 式,在中立的法庭裡審判。透過法治落實
司法,才能強 化台灣民主與保障基本人權。
8
We do not want to see Taiwan ‘s hard-earned democracy jeopardized in this manner. Taiwan
can justifiably be proud of its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It
would be sad for Taiwan and detrimental to its international image if the progress which was
made during the past 20 years would be erased. Taiwan needs to move forward, not
backwards to the unfair and unjust procedures as practiced during the dark days of Martial
Law (1947- 87).
我們不願見到台灣辛苦得來的民主陷入如此困境。台 灣因為在八零年代後期與九零年早期成
功轉型為民主國 家,而引以為傲。如果過去二十年來的民主進展從此抺 煞,這不僅將令人難過,
台灣的國際形象也將受到嚴害 傷害。台灣必須向前邁進,而不應是開倒車回到過去戒 嚴黑暗時
代的不公與不義。
Signed: 簽署人: Nat Bellocchi(白樂崎), former Chairman of the American Institute in
Taiwan Julian Baum(龐恩), former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic
Review Coen Blaauw(昆布老), Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC
David Prager Branner, Director at Large ( East Asia ), American Oriental Society Gordon G.
Chang(章家敦), author, "The Coming Collapse of China."
June Teufel Dreyer(金德芳), Professor of Political Science, University of Miami ,
Florida Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University
of Wisconsin , Madison
Bruce Jacobs(家博), Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University ,
Melbourne , Australia Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University ,
St. Paul Minnesota
Jerome F. Keating(祈夫潤), Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author,
"Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan 's complex history" and other works on
Taiwan Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations , University of
Southern California Victor H. Mair(梅维恒), Professor of Chinese Language and Literature,
University of Pennsylvania Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin
College , Texas Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University
of Manitoba Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of
Ottawa John J. Tkacik Jr(谭慎格), Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation,
Washington DC Gerrit van der Wees(韋傑理), Editor Taiwan
Communiqué, Washington DC Vincent Wei-cheng Wang(王維政), Professor of Political
Science, University of Richmond , Virginia Arthur Waldron(林蔚), Lauder Professor of
International Relations, University of Pennsylvania Stephen Yates(葉望輝), President of DC
Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs
《Taipei Times》,November 5, 2008 (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/
archives/2008/05/20/2003427918) 2008-11-06http://www.caochangqing.com
9
Anhang 3
Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, Page 8, Taipei Times
The undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Europe and Australia, wish to express
their deep concern about the recent series of detentions in Taiwan of present and former
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials. To date there have been at least
seven such cases.
It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan, but these have occurred in
both political camps. The political neutrality of the judicial system is an essential element in a
democracy. It is also essential that any accused are considered innocent until proven guilty in
the court of law.
We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor’s offices are severely flawed:
while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held
incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas
corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law.
In the meantime, the prosecutor’s offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press.
This kind of “trial by press” is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also
gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang (KMT) authorities are using the judicial
system to get even with members of the former DPP government.
In addition, the people who are being held incommunicado are of course unable to defend
themselves against the misreporting and the leaks in the news media.
We do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open
manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to
consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.
We do not want to see Taiwan’s hard-earned democracy jeopardized in this manner. Taiwan
can justifiably be proud of its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It
would be sad for Taiwan and detrimental to its international image if the progress which was
made during the past 20 years would be erased. Taiwan needs to move forward, not
backwards to the unfair and unjust procedures as practiced during the dark days of Martial
Law (1947-1987).
10
Signed:
Julian Baum
Former Far Eastern Economic Review bureau chief
Nat Bellocchi
Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman
Coen Blaauw
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
David Prager Branner
Director at large (East Asia),
American Oriental Society
Gordon G. Chang
Author of
The Coming Collapse of China
PROF. June Teufel Dreyer
University of Miami
PROF. Edward Friedman
University of Wisconsin
PROF. Bruce Jacobs
Monash University
Richard C. Kagan
Professor emeritus,
Hamline University
Jerome Keating
Author and former associate professor, National Taipei University
ASSOC. PROF. Daniel Lynch
School of International Relations, University of Southern California
PROF. Victor H. Mair
University of Pennsylvania
ASSOC. PROF. Donald Rodgers
Austin College
PROF. Terence Russell
University of Manitoba
PROF. Scott Simon
University of Ottawa
11
John J. Tkacik Jr
Senior research fellow,
The Heritage Foundation
Gerrit van der Wees
Editor, Taiwan Communique PROF. Arthur Waldron
University of Pennsylvania
PROF. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang
University of Richmond
Stephen Yates
President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for national
security affairs.
Published on Taipei Times :
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/11/06/2003427918
Copyright © 1999-2013 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
12
Anhang 4
Open letter to Taiwan’s president
Thu, May 21, 2009 - Page 8, Taipei Times
Dear President Ma,
On the occasion of the first anniversary of your presidency, we, the undersigned, scholars
and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, wish to publicly address our
concerns to you about a number of trends in Taiwan, as well as several specific
developments.
We raise these issues as international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply
about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state. As you recall, we
voiced concerns on three previous occasions, most recently in a letter to you, Mr President,
dated Jan. 17, 2009, in which we expressed our concern regarding the fairness of the judicial
system in Taiwan.
These concerns have not been alleviated by either the response from Government
Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) or the cessation of troubling, flawed and
partial judicial proceedings, in particular involving the case of former president Chen Shuibian
(陳水扁).
We reiterate that any alleged corruption must be investigated, but emphasize that the judicial
process needs to be scrupulously fair and impartial. In the case of the former president, it is
evident that the prosecution is heavily tainted by political bias, and that the former president
is being treated badly out of spite for the political views and the positions he took during his
presidency. Such retribution does not bode well for a young and fragile democracy, as
Taiwan is.
The second issue that we feel we need to highlight is press freedom. In spite of earlier
expressions of concern by international organizations such as the Committee to Protect
Journalists and Freedom House, there continue to be reports of impingement on press
freedom by your administration. A case in point is the recent disturbing report that Central
News Agency staff were instructed to write only “positive” stories about the policies of your
administration, and that reports containing criticism of your administration or China were
13
excised.
As supporters of a free and democratic Taiwan it is disheartening to see that in the annual
report on press freedom by the New York-based Freedom House, Taiwan dropped from 32nd
to 43rd place. In addition, it is disconcerting to see reports that groups with close ties to
China are buying their way into Taiwan’s media circles, gaining a controlling voice in major
publications such as the China Times. We need to remind ourselves that China is still an
authoritarian state with a long history of control of the news media. Its financial influence in
Taiwan’s free press will in the long run be detrimental to hard-won freedoms.
This leads us to a third general issue: the means by which rapprochement with China is
being pursued. While most people in Taiwan and overseas agree that a reduction of tension
in the Taiwan Strait is beneficial, it is crucial to do this in a manner befitting a democratic
nation: with openness and full public debate. Only if there is sufficient transparency and true
dialogue — both in the Legislative Yuan and in society as a whole — will the result be
supported by a significant majority of the people.
Transparency and true dialogue have been lacking in the process. Decisions and
agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public. The
Legislative Yuan seems to have been sidelined, having little input in the form or content of
the agreements, such as the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).
The administration simply sends to the legislature the texts agreed to in the negotiations with
the People’s Republic of China, allowing virtually no possibility of discussion of the pros and
cons of such agreements. This undermines the system of checks and balances, which is so
essential to a mature democracy. We may mention that recent opinion polls show
overwhelming support for a referendum on an ECFA and for better legislative oversight of
China policy.
Mr President, as international scholars and writers who have followed Taiwan’s impressive
transition to democracy during the past two decades, we know the sensitivity in Taiwan of the
issue of relations with China. Rapprochement needs to be carried out in a way that ensures
that the achievements of the democratic movement are safeguarded, that the political divide
within Taiwan is reduced and that Taiwan’s sovereignty, human rights and democracy are
protected and strengthened.
However, during the past year we have seen that the policies of your administration are
being implemented in a way that is causing deep anxiety, particularly among many who
fought for Taiwan’s democracy two decades ago. This was evident in the large-scale rallies
held in Taipei and Kaohsiung on Sunday.
14
We have also seen a further polarization in society due to the lack of transparency and
democratic checks and balances. Many observers believe that the rapprochement with China
has occurred at the expense of Taiwan’s sovereignty, democracy and freedoms. To some,
the judicial practices and police behavior toward those who criticize your policies are even
reminiscent of the dark days of martial law.
In this respect, symbols are important. It does not help that your administration has renamed
National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.
It doesn’t bolster your case that the funding for the Chingmei Human Rights Memorial in
Sindian (新店) has been cut drastically and that the location is being turned into a “cultural”
park. It doesn’t help that changes are being made to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行
法) that infringe on freedoms of protesters instead of enhancing freedom of speech.
Mr President, we appeal to you to take measures that alleviate these concerns. A first step
would be to initiate and implement reforms in the judicial system that safeguard the human
rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial. A second step would be to guarantee complete
press freedom, and instill in those engaged in the media the determination to live up to the
highest standards.
Thirdly, rapprochement with China needs to be brought about in such a way that the people
of Taiwan have a full say in determining their future as a free and democratic nation. Closeddoor
deals that bring Taiwan increasingly into China’s sphere of influence are detrimental to
Taiwan’s future and undermine the democratic fabric of society.
Due to its complex history, Taiwan has not had the opportunity to be accepted as a full and
equal member of the international family of nations. We believe the people of Taiwan have
worked hard for their democracy, and that the international community should accept Taiwan
in its midst. Your actions and policies can help the island and its people move in the right
direction. We urge you to do so.
Respectfully yours,
NAT BELLOCCHI
Former chairman,
American Institute in Taiwan
COEN BLAAUW
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
STéPHANE CORCUFF
Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon
15
GORDON G. CHANG
Author, The Coming
Collapse of China
June Teufel Dreyer
Professor of Political Science, University of Miami
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
TERRI GILES
Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
BRUCE JACOBS
Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University
RICHARD C. KAGAN
Professor Emeritus of
History, Hamline University
JEROME F. KEATING
Author and
associate professor (ret.),
National Taipei University
DAVID KILGOUR
Former Canadian member of parliament and secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific
LIU SHIH-CHUNG
Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington
MICHAEL RAND HOARE
Emeritus Reader at the University of London, Great Britain
VICTOR H. MAIR
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature,
University of Pennsylvania
DONALD RODGERS
Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College
TERENCE RUSSELL
Associate Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
16
CHRISTIAN SCHAFFERER
Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of
Technology; and Editor, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
MICHAEL STAINTON
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada
PETER CHOW
Professor of Economics, City College of New York
PETER TAGUE
Professor of Law, Georgetown University
JOHN J. TKACIK JR.
Former senior research
fellow, The Heritage
Foundation, Washington
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG
Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond
GERRIT VAN DER WEES
Editor, Taiwan Communiqué
MICHAEL YAHUDA
Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics, and
Visiting Scholar, George
Washington University
STEPHEN YATES
President, DC Asia Advisory, and former deputy assistant to the US vice president for
national security affairs
Published on Taipei Times :
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/05/21/2003444117
Copyright © 1999-2013 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
17
Ahang 5
Literatur, Bücher
• The Violation of the Law and Constitution by Tsai Shou Hsun (違法違憲 蔡守
訓) , Hrsg. Taiwan Hakka Verein (台灣客社), als E-Book, zum Herunterladen
durch:
http://www.taiwanenews.com/doc/TheViolationOfTheLawAndConstitutionByTsa
iShouHsun.php
• Schwarze Strafzelle in Dunkelheit, „霧夜黑牢: 落土番薯の答辯書 : 2009.4.10-
4.16 阿扁總統出庭對質筆錄“ , Hrsg. Taiwan Hakka Verein (台灣客社), 2009.
• Chen, Yu-Hsu, Sondervotum zur Grundrichterlichen Verfassungsauslegung Nr.
665.
• Wang, Mei-Hsiu (王美琇), „The Presidential Suite, 1.3 Ping“, 22. Juli 2012, The
Liberty Times
Menschenrechtler, Wissenschaftler
Juristen:
• Chen, Yu-Hsu Dr. jur. Freiburg（陳玉秀), Grandrichterin des
Verfassungsgerichts Taiwan
• Hong, Ying-Hua （洪英花), Richterin des Local Court Shi-Lin (Taipei)
• Huang, Yue-Sui (黃越綏), Menschenrechtlerin
• Tseng, Wen-Long (鄭文龍), Rechtsanwalt von Präsidenten Chen, Shui-Bian
• Chen, Hui-Hsin Dr. jur. Regensburg ( 陳惠馨), Jura-Professorin der National
Chengchi University Taipei
• Lin, Jia-He (林佳和), Assistant Professor der National Chengchi University
Taipei (Jur.-Fakultät, Promotion an der Uni. Bremen)
Medienwissenschaftler:
• Su, Cheng-Ping (蘇正平), Ehemaliger Leiter des Presseamtes Taiwan,
Journalist in Taiwan (Universität Frankfurt am Main)
• Weng, Hsiu-Chi Dr. (翁秀琪), Professorin em. der National Chengchi University
Taipei (Medienwissenschaftlerin, Promotion an der Uni. Mainz)
Experte im medizinischen Bereich:
• Chen, Chou-Tsi (陳昭姿), Menschenrechtlerin und ehemalige Vorsitzende des
Taiwan Bei Verein (臺灣北社)
• Chen, Chiao-Chi (陳喬琪), Arzt des Mackay Memorial Hospital
• Lin, Hsin-Nan (林信男), Professor und Arzt an dem Uniklinikum der National
Taiwan University
• Ko, Wen-Che (柯文哲), Professor und Arzt an dem Uniklinikum der National
Taiwan University
===========================================================
1
Menschenrechtsverletzung in Taiwan
Dringende Appelle zur Rettung des ehemaligen Präsidenten Chen Shui-Bian
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Riedel,
durch die Presse und durch Frau Müller-Wollermann von amnesty international haben wir
erfahren, dass Sie bald Taiwan, unsere Heimat, besuchen werden, um dort die
Menschenrechtssituation zu untersuchen und zu begutachten.
Als Taiwanesen im Ausland sind wir über die immer schlechter werdende
Menschenrechtssituation in unserer Heimat besorgter als je zuvor. Insbesondere sehen wir
zwei wichtige Grundrechte in schwerwiegender Weise gefährdet:
Die Presse- / Meinungsfreiheit und das Recht der Angeklagten / Angeschuldigten.
Nachfolgend möchten wir unsere Besorgnis ausdrücken. Damit hoffen und appellieren wir
dringend:
• Bitte gehen Sie - als international anerkannter Wissenschaftler und
Menschenrechtsexperten - den geschilderten Sachverhalten nach;
• Bitte dokumentieren Sie die Wahrheit über die Menschenrechtsverletzungen in
Taiwan;
• Bitte bringen Sie die Problematik an die Weltöffentlichkeit.
Insbesondere appellieren wir an Sie:
• Bitte besuchen Sie unseren ehemaligen Präsidenten Chen Shui-Bian, der zurzeit
wegen schlechter Haftbedingungen lebensbedrohlich erkrankt im Krankenhaus zur
Behandlung ist und dennoch davor steht , wieder ins Gefängnis zurück geschickt zu
werden.
Um den Rahmen nicht zu sprengen, möchten wir nur eine kurze Darstellung (ohne Zitate und
nicht immer mit Quellen versehen) über die von uns beobachteten
Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den zwei Gebieten schildern. Im Anhang finden Sie eine
Liste von taiwanesischen Menschenrechtlern sowie einige Literatur zu den hier aufgeführten
Themen (Anhang 2-5). Wir sind jederzeit gerne bereit, Ihnen die Quellen und weitere
Informationen zu nennen.
Zur Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit:
Bekanntermaßen ist Taiwan ein gespaltenes Land mit zum Teil sehr polarisierten Ansichten:
für die Vereinigung mit China oder dagegen, eine an sich völlig normale Situation in einem
demokratischen Land mit vielfältigen Meinungen. Leider sind die Demokratie und diese
Meinungsvielfalt in den letzten Jahren durch die Konzentrierung der Massenmedien auf
2
wenige Pro-China-Konzerne (wie z. B. „Want Want China Times Media Group“ von Herrn
Tsai Yan-Ming) schwer gefährdet. Ein jüngstes Beispiel ist der Anteilsverkauf der
Konzerngruppe Next Media (壹傳媒 „Yi Chuan Mei“) an Herrn Tsai Yan-Ming. Durch den
Anteilserwerb wird sich fast 50% des Marktanteils an Tageszeitungen in Taiwan in der Hand
von Herrn Tsai Yan-Ming befinden. Die Massenmedien in Taiwan, also die Presse sowie die
sich bereits in seinem Besitz befindlichen Fernsehsender, werden von Herrn Tsai sowie der
Interessegruppe hinten ihm monopoliert und manipuliert!
Unsere Regierung ignoriert nicht nur diese Tatsache, die in den meisten demokratischen,
freiheitlichen Gesellschaften als eine der schwersten Verstöße gegen den freien Wettbewerb
angesehen werden dürfte. Sie verteidigt dies gar im Namen der freien Marktwirtschaft!
Das Recht der Angeklagten / Angeschuldigten (Fall des Präsidenten Chen):
Eine schwerwiegende Art der Menschenrechtsverletzung im Bereich der Justiz geschah und
geschieht fast jeden Tag in Taiwan, in einem Land, das von Deutschland fast alle wichtigen,
strafprozessrechtlichen Theorien wie die Unschuldsvermutung, das Recht auf den
gesetzlichen Richter und „nulla poena sine lege“ rezipiert hat. Die Rezeption der Theorien
erfolgt aber eben nur „theoretisch“.
Die Folter und die Anwendung anderer Zwänge sind nicht abwesend in der Tagespraxis in
Taiwan. Bei nahezu allen Ermittlungen wird die Untersuchungshaft willkürlich verordnet und
häufig zudem in unverhältnismäßiger Weise (Beispiele folgen noch). Die Dauer der
Untersuchungshaft kann während der Ermittlungen zwei Monate und während des
Gerichtsprozesses drei Monaten betragen. Verlängerung der Untersuchungshaft ist möglich
und wird fast immer praktiziert. Zunehmend wird auch beobachtet, dass die strafrechtliche
Verfolgung (z. B. wegen angeblicher Korruption) als Rache oder „Erziehungsmaßnahmen“
gegen politische Gegner genutzt wurde, um deren Ruf zu schädigen und deren Person zu
ruinieren. Zu kritisieren ist insbesondere auch, dass die Todstrafe nicht selten deshalb
ausgeführt wird, um Popularität zu gewinnen oder um die Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit
von einem bestimmten Ereignisses abzulenken. Es wurde berichtet, dass die Hinrichtung
von sechs zum Tode Verurteilten im Dezember 2012 deshalb vollstreckt wurde, um die
Aufmerksamkeit der Öffentlichkeit von einem geheimen Treffen des Justizministers Zeng
Yong-Fu mit einem in Korruptionsverdacht geratenen Politiker abzulenken.
Am prominentesten und viel beachtet in den letzten Jahren ist die Anklage und Verurteilung
des ehemaligen Präsidenten Herrn Chen Shui-Bian.1 Die schwerwiegenden Verstöße
gegen den Grundsatz „fair Trial“ in diesem Fall sind Folgende:
• Präsident Chen saß vor der Verurteilung länger als 118 Tage in Untersuchungshaft.
Die Begründungen für die Untersuchungshaft umfassen unter anderem „Interview bei
der Presse“, „Verfassen von Artikeln“, „Als Präsident kennt er den Fluchtweg gut“.
• Nachdem ein Richter (Chou Chang-Chun 周占春) die Untersuchungshaft für nicht
erforderlich entschieden hatte und den Präsidenten Chen ohne Kaution freigelassen
hatte, wurde dieser Richter ausgewechselt. Schließlich wurde der Prozess mit einem
1
Mehrere
Artikel
wurden
zu
diesem
Fall
verfasst.
Wir
fügen
als
Beispiel
den
Artikel
von
Herrn
Prof.
Dr.
Cohen
als
Anhang
1
bei.
3
anderen Prozess verbunden und einem anderen Richter, Herrn Tsai Shou-Hsu （蔡
守訓）, zur Bearbeitung abgegeben. Dieser Vorgang hat gegen den praktizierten
Grundsatz der Aktenverteilung im Taipei Local Court (§§ 10 und 43) und mithin
gegen den Grundsatz des gesetzlichen Richters verstoßen2.
• Der Richter Tsai, Shou-Hsu（蔡守訓）, der zuvor in einem anderen Verfahren (Fall
„Sonderausgaben des Oberbürgermeisters“, „首長特支費“) gegen den jetzigen
Präsidenten Ma (KMT) mit fast identischem Sachverhalt diesen freigesprochen hatte,
hat in dem Verfahren gegen den ehemaligen Präsidenten Chen Shui-Bian (Fall
„Ausgaben des Präsidenten für vertrauliche Staatsangelegenheiten“, „總統國務機要
費“) ihn zu lebenslänglicher Haft verurteilt.
• Der eine Beweis, der gegen Chen in einem Verfahren angeführt wurde, basierte – so
lautet die Aussage des Zeugen (馬永成) im Gerichtsprotokoll – auf dessen
Vermutung. Der andere Zeuge （辜仲諒） hatte im Nachhinein ausgesagt, dass er
auf Veranlassung der Staatsanwaltschaft falsche Aussagen gemacht hat.
• Auf den Videoaufnahmen, die bei der Befragung der Zeugen gemacht wurden, sind
an mehreren Stellen Drohungen und Zwänge durch die Ermittler festzustellen.
Darüber hinaus wurde der Präsident Chen (bis zu seiner Überstellung ins Krankenhaus) im
Gefängnis auf eine (von einer Zivilgesellschaft) unvorstellbare Weise unmenschlich und
erniedrigend behandelt:
• Der Präsident Chen wurde in Einzelhaft untergebracht. Seine Zelle ist 5 qm groß.
Das Zimmer hat eine offene Toilette (also keine Trennung). Er hat kein Bett, keinen
Tisch und auch keine Stuhl. Seit 4 Jahren schlief er auf dem Boden. Zum Schreiben
oder Essen lag bzw. saß er auf dem Fußboden. Seine Zelle wurde 24 Stunden rund
um die Uhr gefilmt, auch beim Toilettengang. Erst nach stärker werdendem Protest
aus der Öffentlichkeit hat er einen Tisch und einen Stuhl erhalten.
• Mit der Begründung der Sicherheitsbedenken konnte er nicht – wie andere
Gefangenen – an den Aktivitäten außerhalb der Zelle teilnehmen. Auch hier erreichte
erst starker Protest aus der Öffentlichkeit, dass Präsident Chen jeden Tag eine
Stunde ans Tageslicht darf.
• Jedes Mal, wenn Präsident Chen vom Gericht zurückkam und die Zelle wiederbetrat,
musste er sich komplett ausziehen. Die Untersuchung umfasste standardmäßig auch
das Geschlechtsteil und den Anus3.
2
Die
Grandrichterin
des
Verfassungsgerichts
Taiwan,
Chen
Yu-‐Hsiu
(陳玉秀,
promoviert
an
der
Uni.
Freiburg)
hat
ein
Sodervotum
zur
Grandrichterlichen
Verfassungsauslegung
Nr.
665
in
diesem
Thema
verfasst
und
die
Richterin
Hong
Ying-‐Hua
(洪英花)
an
dem
Shi-‐Lin
Local
Court
hat
sehr
viele
Artikel
zu
diesem
Fall
veröffentlicht.
3
Zheng,
Zheng-‐Yu
(鄭正煜)
,
„Anus-‐Untersuchung
beim
Präsidenten
Chen“
in:
Law
Violation
by
Tsai
Shou-‐Hsu,
Hrsg.
Taiwan
Hakka
Verein,
S.
25.
4
• Aufgrund der schlechten Haftbedingungen leidet derzeit Herr Präsident Chen an
mehreren schweren Krankheiten: Schwierigkeiten beim Sprechen, Atmen-Aussetzer
bei Schlafen, schwere Depressionen, Verfolgungswahn sowie Verdacht auf
Parkinson.
• Auf die Kritik gegen die erniedringende und unmenschliche Behandlung des
Präsidenten Chen antwortete das Justizministerium mit der Veröffentlichung seiner
Haftbedingungen auf der Website des Justizministreriums unter „The Treatment of
Former President Chen Shui-bian at Taipei Prison“. Dabei verteidigt das
Justizminsterium die Mißhandlung mit der Rechtfertigung, die Behandlung des
ehemaligen Präsidenten sei gleich wie oder gar besser als die anderen Gefangenen!
Zurzeit ist Herr Präsident Chen im Krankhaus zur Behandlung. Trotz seines schlimmen
Zustandes und nationaler sowie internationaler Appelle erwägt die Regierung von Ma, ihn
wieder ins Gefängnis zurückzuschicken. Bisher verweigert ihm der amtierende Präsident Ma
die Bewährung zur ärztlichen Behandlung.
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Riedel, wir hoffen sehr, dass durch Ihren Besuch das Thema
„Menschenrechte“ eine verstärkte Beachtung in Taiwan findet. Als von der Regierung
bestellter Gutachter haben Sie besseren Zugang zu dem Material als die normale
taiwanesische Bevölkerung. Als prominenter Wissenschaftler mit internationalem Ansehen
und langjähriger Tätigkeit im Bereich Menschenrechte können Sie tiefer in die Widersprüche
und in die Verwirrungen blicken.
Werden Sie unsere Augen. Werden Sie unser Gehör. Zeigen Sie unseren Landsleuten die
Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit auf, auch wenn es weh tut.
Für Ihren Einsatz bedanken wir uns herzlich im Voraus.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Pey-Fen Fuh
Rechtsanwältin (RK Frankfurt am Main)
LL.M. (Marburbg)
LL.B. (National Taiwan University)
5
Anlage 1
South China Morning Post, Thursday, January 08, 2009
Jerome Cohen, New York
When analysing the experience of the US Supreme Court, the late Charles Evans Hughes
(chief justice 1930-39) commented: "The gravest wounds are self-inflicted." Taiwan's courts
should reflect on that wisdom.
The prosecution of former president Chen Shui-bian has not even come to trial. Yet his
judges have already bungled the historic opportunity Chen's case presents for the judiciary to
confirm its independence, impartiality and competence.
The vibrant democracy for which so many in Taiwan have struggled is in trouble. Corruption
threatens the integrity of the political system. This cancer cannot be controlled without a
credible, fair and transparent judicial system to enforce the law.
Following Chen's November 11 arrest, despite the deep political divisions and partisan
suspicions of Taiwanese society, the prosecution's detailed allegations of massive corruption
by Chen, his family and colleagues had prepared the public to accept the prospect of their
guilt and punishment.
Their convictions after proceedings perceived to be fair would vindicate the values of clean
government, deter potential wrongdoers and heighten confidence in courts that began to free
themselves from decades of authoritarian Kuomintang government fewer than 20 years ago.
Unfortunately, recent court proceedings have mocked that promise. Unless some
unexpected, bold action restores public confidence, convictions of Chen and his associates
will enhance popular cynicism and deny the courts the broad support required by any
successful judiciary.
What happened? Chinese have traditionally emphasised substantive criminal law - guilt or
innocence - rather than procedure. Yet, recent events, reflecting Taiwan's gradual transition
from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, focused attention on two related sets of
criminal process issues: pre-trial detention and the merger of separate prosecutions.
The battle between Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun's three-judge panel - which
twice took the unusual step of ordering Chen's release without bail, pending trial - and
Taiwan's High Court - which twice reversed that decision - only ended when the case against
the Chen group, originally assigned by lot to Judge Chou's panel, was merged into the earlier
prosecution of Chen's wife for embezzling special state funds. That case is being handled by
Judge Tsai Shou-hsun's panel.
The transfer made it possible for Judge Tsai to preside over Chen's third post-indictment
detention hearing. His panel ordered Chen's return to detention, in a decision that
contradicted the spirit of the Council of Grand Justices' Interpretation No653, issued several
days earlier. The interpretation eloquently emphasised that the criminally accused should
only be detained when no other measures suffice.
Although this time Chen is not being handcuffed and held incommunicado, as he was for 32
days before indictment, any conversations with visiting family and even his lawyers can be
monitored and used as evidence against him, and them!
6
Detained defendants are obviously hampered in preparing their defence in other ways, such
as by discussing the case with co-defendants and witnesses, which was one of the
prosecution's two main fears if Chen remained free pending trial. The other is that, if
released, Chen might flee Taiwan. Judge Tsai could have released Chen under high bail and
residential restrictions that made flight unlikely. Chen's incentive to flee will increase if he is
convicted at trial. Does this mean he will continue to be detained if he appeals against any
conviction? This would mean incarceration for years before final conviction.
At what point does the presumption of innocence become meaningless and pre-conviction
detention morph into punishment for a crime not finally proved?
The dilemmas of a defendant's detention before final conviction plague every country. More
distinctive to Taiwan are the unresolved mysteries surrounding the recent merger of the
Chen group's case into the embezzlement case brought against his wife in 2006 - a time
when Chen, although involved, still enjoyed presidential immunity from prosecution.
If such a merger was necessary, why was it not effected when the indictment against the
Chen group was issued? Instead, the district court decided that the new indictment, which
featured money-laundering and other complex charges - plus the earlier embezzlement
charge against Chen - should be assigned to a separate judicial panel by lottery.
The lottery was limited to the few panels deemed more specialised than Judge Tsai's for
dealing with complex financial transactions. How, then, can the court justify the subsequent
assignment to Judge Tsai? Can the random assignment of cases essential to judicial
neutrality be so easily circumvented?
According to the court's official press releases, assignment to Judge Tsai by the court's
merger review panel followed court rules. Yet that review process could only be initiated by
request of the judge in charge of the later case. Why did Judge Chou make that request?
Was he pressured to do so? Why did the review panel not accept his proposal to transfer to
Judge Tsai only that part of the group indictment relating to the embezzlement case against
Chen and his wife, leaving the more complex accusations to Judge Chou's panel, as the
court originally intended? Why did the review panel consist of merely five of the relevant
criminal division chiefs? Why did the merger issue only become salient after the second time
Judge Chou ordered Chen's release? Was this entire non-transparent process the court's
response to angry public criticism of Judge Chou? Did any politician intimidate the court with
secret threats?
Answers to such questions will eventually emerge. More immediately, is there any way to
guarantee the Chen group and the public a judicial process that will have both the
appearance and the reality of justice?
Why doesn't Judge Tsai, who reportedly did not want to take on the new case, withdraw from
handling all but the earlier embezzlement charges against the Chens? Then the district court
can return to its original intent and again select by lot a judicial panel of financial specialists
to deal with the complex accusations of the new case.
The new panel might even approve another application for Chen's release pending trial, with
high bail and strict residential restrictions. Then both trials could proceed with broad public
support. Justice, as the saying goes, must not only be done, but must also be seen to be
done. That is the price of judicial legitimacy.
Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
7
Anhang 2
November 4, 2008 in Taipei Times
JOINT STATEMENT US , European and Australian scholars and writers
express concern about prosecutions in Taiwan
The undersigned, scholars and writers from the US , Europe and Australia wish to express
their deep concern about the recent series of detentions in Taiwan of present and former
DPP government officials. To date there have
been at least seven such cases (See list below).
以下聯署的國際學者對於近日台灣政府一連串拘留 卸任與現任民進黨政府官員的行動,深表憂
慮。直至今 日,據我們瞭解共有七件類似案件。
It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan , but these have occurred in
both political camps. The political neutrality of the judicial system is an essential element in a
democracy. It is also essential that any accused are considered innocent until proven guilty
in the court of law.
很明顯的,貪污這個問題在台灣依然存在,但是這樣 的案例在兩大政黨裡均曾發生。司法系統維
持政治中立 是民主的基本要素。堅持任何被指控者在裁定有罪前均 是無罪的法律理念也是必
要的。
We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor's offices are severely flawed:
while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held
incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas
corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law.
我們認為檢察官所採取的法律程序有著嚴重的缺失: 雖然當一、兩位被指控者已被正式起訴時,
大多數被指 控者卻在未被正式起訴情況之下就遭到收押禁見。這嚴 重違反了人身保護令以及
正當法律程序、公義與法治。
In the meantime, the prosecutor’s offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press.
This kind of “trial by press” is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also
gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang authorities are using the judicial system to
get even with members of the former DPP government. In addition, the people who are being
held incommunicado are of course unable to defend themselves against the misreporting
and the leaks in the news media.
在此同時,檢察官辦公室很明顯地將相關不利消息透 露給媒體。這種「透過媒體辦案」的方式
違反司法程序 的基本標準;也讓外界認為國民黨政府利用司法系統來 報復已下台的民進黨政府
。此外,被收押禁見的人,在 與外界斷絕聯繫的情況下,無法澄清外界不實報導與媒 體洩密。
We do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open
manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan `s efforts
to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.
我們深信任何宣稱的犯罪行為應該以公正與公開的方 式,在中立的法庭裡審判。透過法治落實
司法,才能強 化台灣民主與保障基本人權。
8
We do not want to see Taiwan ‘s hard-earned democracy jeopardized in this manner. Taiwan
can justifiably be proud of its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It
would be sad for Taiwan and detrimental to its international image if the progress which was
made during the past 20 years would be erased. Taiwan needs to move forward, not
backwards to the unfair and unjust procedures as practiced during the dark days of Martial
Law (1947- 87).
我們不願見到台灣辛苦得來的民主陷入如此困境。台 灣因為在八零年代後期與九零年早期成
功轉型為民主國 家,而引以為傲。如果過去二十年來的民主進展從此抺 煞,這不僅將令人難過,
台灣的國際形象也將受到嚴害 傷害。台灣必須向前邁進,而不應是開倒車回到過去戒 嚴黑暗時
代的不公與不義。
Signed: 簽署人: Nat Bellocchi(白樂崎), former Chairman of the American Institute in
Taiwan Julian Baum(龐恩), former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic
Review Coen Blaauw(昆布老), Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC
David Prager Branner, Director at Large ( East Asia ), American Oriental Society Gordon G.
Chang(章家敦), author, "The Coming Collapse of China."
June Teufel Dreyer(金德芳), Professor of Political Science, University of Miami ,
Florida Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University
of Wisconsin , Madison
Bruce Jacobs(家博), Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University ,
Melbourne , Australia Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University ,
St. Paul Minnesota
Jerome F. Keating(祈夫潤), Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author,
"Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan 's complex history" and other works on
Taiwan Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations , University of
Southern California Victor H. Mair(梅维恒), Professor of Chinese Language and Literature,
University of Pennsylvania Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin
College , Texas Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University
of Manitoba Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of
Ottawa John J. Tkacik Jr(谭慎格), Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation,
Washington DC Gerrit van der Wees(韋傑理), Editor Taiwan
Communiqué, Washington DC Vincent Wei-cheng Wang(王維政), Professor of Political
Science, University of Richmond , Virginia Arthur Waldron(林蔚), Lauder Professor of
International Relations, University of Pennsylvania Stephen Yates(葉望輝), President of DC
Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs
《Taipei Times》,November 5, 2008 (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/
archives/2008/05/20/2003427918) 2008-11-06http://www.caochangqing.com
9
Anhang 3
Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, Page 8, Taipei Times
The undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Europe and Australia, wish to express
their deep concern about the recent series of detentions in Taiwan of present and former
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials. To date there have been at least
seven such cases.
It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan, but these have occurred in
both political camps. The political neutrality of the judicial system is an essential element in a
democracy. It is also essential that any accused are considered innocent until proven guilty in
the court of law.
We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor’s offices are severely flawed:
while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held
incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas
corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law.
In the meantime, the prosecutor’s offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press.
This kind of “trial by press” is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also
gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang (KMT) authorities are using the judicial
system to get even with members of the former DPP government.
In addition, the people who are being held incommunicado are of course unable to defend
themselves against the misreporting and the leaks in the news media.
We do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open
manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to
consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.
We do not want to see Taiwan’s hard-earned democracy jeopardized in this manner. Taiwan
can justifiably be proud of its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It
would be sad for Taiwan and detrimental to its international image if the progress which was
made during the past 20 years would be erased. Taiwan needs to move forward, not
backwards to the unfair and unjust procedures as practiced during the dark days of Martial
Law (1947-1987).
10
Signed:
Julian Baum
Former Far Eastern Economic Review bureau chief
Nat Bellocchi
Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman
Coen Blaauw
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
David Prager Branner
Director at large (East Asia),
American Oriental Society
Gordon G. Chang
Author of
The Coming Collapse of China
PROF. June Teufel Dreyer
University of Miami
PROF. Edward Friedman
University of Wisconsin
PROF. Bruce Jacobs
Monash University
Richard C. Kagan
Professor emeritus,
Hamline University
Jerome Keating
Author and former associate professor, National Taipei University
ASSOC. PROF. Daniel Lynch
School of International Relations, University of Southern California
PROF. Victor H. Mair
University of Pennsylvania
ASSOC. PROF. Donald Rodgers
Austin College
PROF. Terence Russell
University of Manitoba
PROF. Scott Simon
University of Ottawa
11
John J. Tkacik Jr
Senior research fellow,
The Heritage Foundation
Gerrit van der Wees
Editor, Taiwan Communique PROF. Arthur Waldron
University of Pennsylvania
PROF. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang
University of Richmond
Stephen Yates
President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for national
security affairs.
Published on Taipei Times :
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/11/06/2003427918
Copyright © 1999-2013 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
12
Anhang 4
Open letter to Taiwan’s president
Thu, May 21, 2009 - Page 8, Taipei Times
Dear President Ma,
On the occasion of the first anniversary of your presidency, we, the undersigned, scholars
and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, wish to publicly address our
concerns to you about a number of trends in Taiwan, as well as several specific
developments.
We raise these issues as international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply
about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state. As you recall, we
voiced concerns on three previous occasions, most recently in a letter to you, Mr President,
dated Jan. 17, 2009, in which we expressed our concern regarding the fairness of the judicial
system in Taiwan.
These concerns have not been alleviated by either the response from Government
Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) or the cessation of troubling, flawed and
partial judicial proceedings, in particular involving the case of former president Chen Shuibian
(陳水扁).
We reiterate that any alleged corruption must be investigated, but emphasize that the judicial
process needs to be scrupulously fair and impartial. In the case of the former president, it is
evident that the prosecution is heavily tainted by political bias, and that the former president
is being treated badly out of spite for the political views and the positions he took during his
presidency. Such retribution does not bode well for a young and fragile democracy, as
Taiwan is.
The second issue that we feel we need to highlight is press freedom. In spite of earlier
expressions of concern by international organizations such as the Committee to Protect
Journalists and Freedom House, there continue to be reports of impingement on press
freedom by your administration. A case in point is the recent disturbing report that Central
News Agency staff were instructed to write only “positive” stories about the policies of your
administration, and that reports containing criticism of your administration or China were
13
excised.
As supporters of a free and democratic Taiwan it is disheartening to see that in the annual
report on press freedom by the New York-based Freedom House, Taiwan dropped from 32nd
to 43rd place. In addition, it is disconcerting to see reports that groups with close ties to
China are buying their way into Taiwan’s media circles, gaining a controlling voice in major
publications such as the China Times. We need to remind ourselves that China is still an
authoritarian state with a long history of control of the news media. Its financial influence in
Taiwan’s free press will in the long run be detrimental to hard-won freedoms.
This leads us to a third general issue: the means by which rapprochement with China is
being pursued. While most people in Taiwan and overseas agree that a reduction of tension
in the Taiwan Strait is beneficial, it is crucial to do this in a manner befitting a democratic
nation: with openness and full public debate. Only if there is sufficient transparency and true
dialogue — both in the Legislative Yuan and in society as a whole — will the result be
supported by a significant majority of the people.
Transparency and true dialogue have been lacking in the process. Decisions and
agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public. The
Legislative Yuan seems to have been sidelined, having little input in the form or content of
the agreements, such as the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).
The administration simply sends to the legislature the texts agreed to in the negotiations with
the People’s Republic of China, allowing virtually no possibility of discussion of the pros and
cons of such agreements. This undermines the system of checks and balances, which is so
essential to a mature democracy. We may mention that recent opinion polls show
overwhelming support for a referendum on an ECFA and for better legislative oversight of
China policy.
Mr President, as international scholars and writers who have followed Taiwan’s impressive
transition to democracy during the past two decades, we know the sensitivity in Taiwan of the
issue of relations with China. Rapprochement needs to be carried out in a way that ensures
that the achievements of the democratic movement are safeguarded, that the political divide
within Taiwan is reduced and that Taiwan’s sovereignty, human rights and democracy are
protected and strengthened.
However, during the past year we have seen that the policies of your administration are
being implemented in a way that is causing deep anxiety, particularly among many who
fought for Taiwan’s democracy two decades ago. This was evident in the large-scale rallies
held in Taipei and Kaohsiung on Sunday.
14
We have also seen a further polarization in society due to the lack of transparency and
democratic checks and balances. Many observers believe that the rapprochement with China
has occurred at the expense of Taiwan’s sovereignty, democracy and freedoms. To some,
the judicial practices and police behavior toward those who criticize your policies are even
reminiscent of the dark days of martial law.
In this respect, symbols are important. It does not help that your administration has renamed
National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.
It doesn’t bolster your case that the funding for the Chingmei Human Rights Memorial in
Sindian (新店) has been cut drastically and that the location is being turned into a “cultural”
park. It doesn’t help that changes are being made to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行
法) that infringe on freedoms of protesters instead of enhancing freedom of speech.
Mr President, we appeal to you to take measures that alleviate these concerns. A first step
would be to initiate and implement reforms in the judicial system that safeguard the human
rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial. A second step would be to guarantee complete
press freedom, and instill in those engaged in the media the determination to live up to the
highest standards.
Thirdly, rapprochement with China needs to be brought about in such a way that the people
of Taiwan have a full say in determining their future as a free and democratic nation. Closeddoor
deals that bring Taiwan increasingly into China’s sphere of influence are detrimental to
Taiwan’s future and undermine the democratic fabric of society.
Due to its complex history, Taiwan has not had the opportunity to be accepted as a full and
equal member of the international family of nations. We believe the people of Taiwan have
worked hard for their democracy, and that the international community should accept Taiwan
in its midst. Your actions and policies can help the island and its people move in the right
direction. We urge you to do so.
Respectfully yours,
NAT BELLOCCHI
Former chairman,
American Institute in Taiwan
COEN BLAAUW
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
STéPHANE CORCUFF
Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon
15
GORDON G. CHANG
Author, The Coming
Collapse of China
June Teufel Dreyer
Professor of Political Science, University of Miami
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
TERRI GILES
Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
BRUCE JACOBS
Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University
RICHARD C. KAGAN
Professor Emeritus of
History, Hamline University
JEROME F. KEATING
Author and
associate professor (ret.),
National Taipei University
DAVID KILGOUR
Former Canadian member of parliament and secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific
LIU SHIH-CHUNG
Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington
MICHAEL RAND HOARE
Emeritus Reader at the University of London, Great Britain
VICTOR H. MAIR
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature,
University of Pennsylvania
DONALD RODGERS
Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College
TERENCE RUSSELL
Associate Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
16
CHRISTIAN SCHAFFERER
Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of
Technology; and Editor, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
MICHAEL STAINTON
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada
PETER CHOW
Professor of Economics, City College of New York
PETER TAGUE
Professor of Law, Georgetown University
JOHN J. TKACIK JR.
Former senior research
fellow, The Heritage
Foundation, Washington
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG
Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond
GERRIT VAN DER WEES
Editor, Taiwan Communiqué
MICHAEL YAHUDA
Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics, and
Visiting Scholar, George
Washington University
STEPHEN YATES
President, DC Asia Advisory, and former deputy assistant to the US vice president for
national security affairs
Published on Taipei Times :
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/05/21/2003444117
Copyright © 1999-2013 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
17
Ahang 5
Literatur, Bücher
• The Violation of the Law and Constitution by Tsai Shou Hsun (違法違憲 蔡守
訓) , Hrsg. Taiwan Hakka Verein (台灣客社), als E-Book, zum Herunterladen
durch:
http://www.taiwanenews.com/doc/TheViolationOfTheLawAndConstitutionByTsa
iShouHsun.php
• Schwarze Strafzelle in Dunkelheit, „霧夜黑牢: 落土番薯の答辯書 : 2009.4.10-
4.16 阿扁總統出庭對質筆錄“ , Hrsg. Taiwan Hakka Verein (台灣客社), 2009.
• Chen, Yu-Hsu, Sondervotum zur Grundrichterlichen Verfassungsauslegung Nr.
665.
• Wang, Mei-Hsiu (王美琇), „The Presidential Suite, 1.3 Ping“, 22. Juli 2012, The
Liberty Times
Menschenrechtler, Wissenschaftler
Juristen:
• Chen, Yu-Hsu Dr. jur. Freiburg（陳玉秀), Grandrichterin des
Verfassungsgerichts Taiwan
• Hong, Ying-Hua （洪英花), Richterin des Local Court Shi-Lin (Taipei)
• Huang, Yue-Sui (黃越綏), Menschenrechtlerin
• Tseng, Wen-Long (鄭文龍), Rechtsanwalt von Präsidenten Chen, Shui-Bian
• Chen, Hui-Hsin Dr. jur. Regensburg ( 陳惠馨), Jura-Professorin der National
Chengchi University Taipei
• Lin, Jia-He (林佳和), Assistant Professor der National Chengchi University
Taipei (Jur.-Fakultät, Promotion an der Uni. Bremen)
Medienwissenschaftler:
• Su, Cheng-Ping (蘇正平), Ehemaliger Leiter des Presseamtes Taiwan,
Journalist in Taiwan (Universität Frankfurt am Main)
• Weng, Hsiu-Chi Dr. (翁秀琪), Professorin em. der National Chengchi University
Taipei (Medienwissenschaftlerin, Promotion an der Uni. Mainz)
Experte im medizinischen Bereich:
• Chen, Chou-Tsi (陳昭姿), Menschenrechtlerin und ehemalige Vorsitzende des
Taiwan Bei Verein (臺灣北社)
• Chen, Chiao-Chi (陳喬琪), Arzt des Mackay Memorial Hospital
• Lin, Hsin-Nan (林信男), Professor und Arzt an dem Uniklinikum der National
Taiwan University
• Ko, Wen-Che (柯文哲), Professor und Arzt an dem Uniklinikum der National
Taiwan University
