The arguments presented in the Sept. 18 editorial, “Pardon Mr. Chen to help Taiwan,” are rather messy. Are you arguing that it is not in the public interest to prosecute, or to give former Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian a lesser sentence? You don’t say which.
“Justice should be blind,” according to the editorial, but it goes on to argue that justice wasn’t blind — it was politically biased. Then the editorial states that Chen might have been guilty since the evidence seemed compelling. OK, I see the two sides to this. Still, if Chen is guilty, shouldn’t justice be seen to have been done?
The suggestion in the editorial that the prosecution of Chen could ferment unrest doesn’t seem to recognize the disillusionment of somebody who sees a politician who came to power on an anti-sleaze ticket found guilty of sleaze in a big way and then let off or treated more leniently — as if the rich had a law of their own.
In the situation set out, the editorial’s conclusion surely must be that this is a mess in which there can no longer be any winners — that the chance of a credible conviction was lost as soon as the judicial process was seen to be politicized. Yet, “Mr. Clean” is in fact very corrupt, and the judicial process is not credible if it gives him a lesser sentence than to another fallen angel.
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.