Font size: 
This incident has evoked a huge wave of discussion among Chinese not only on the island but also in mainland China and Hong Kong. Many view the revelation of this suspected crime and the judicial investigation that is under way as evidence of the merit of democracy; others say the whole affair reveals the weakness of the democratic system.
Taiwan’s current president, Ma Ying-jeou, described the money-laundering incident as “disgraceful” and said the behavior of Chen Shui-bian’s couple reminded people of former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife. Marcos was accused of appropriating hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in state funds, while his wife lived a life of luxury and was famous for her thousands of shoes.
Chen’s wife reportedly has a collection of expensive jewelry and diamonds. In addition his wife, son-in-law and other relatives are accused in at least five major corruption cases.
Chen appeared at a press conference on Aug. 14 to apologize for his involvement in transferring a huge sum of money overseas, after a Kuomintang lawmaker revealed that as much as US$31 million had been transferred into four Swiss bank accounts held in his daughter-in-law’s name. The matter came to light when Swiss banking authorities requested the help of Taiwan officials in investigating these accounts.
Chen insisted the money remained from donations to his previous election campaigns, and that his wife had transferred it overseas without his knowledge. This has not gone over well with the public, however, and other accusations have raised the amount in question to US$70 million.
The truth of the family’s alleged money laundering is still under investigation; meanwhile, the dispute over Taiwan’s democracy is going strong. Chinese mainlanders are having a heyday over these events. In online blogs and chat rooms, some claim that democracy can’t be such a good system if such a bad leader as Chen could be elected.
“If this problem of Chen’s was discovered while he was still in office and it took him out of power, then it would have been more convincing!” wrote one critic of democracy.
“There have also been many cases of corruption discovered and prosecuted on the mainland; can it be credited to ‘democracy’ or ‘despotism’?” another mainlander commented on the Internet.
One mainland netizen credited Taiwan’s system with uncovering such high-level crime, however. In his analysis, the exposure of the former president’s financial crimes is the outcome of multi-party democracy and an anti-corruption culture.
“Chen’s son-in-law was sentenced to six years in jail, which is unbelievable in many countries,” another netizen said.
Former DPP lawmaker Lee Wen-zhong tried to explain Chen’s actions, saying that Taiwan was not a “normal” democracy. In his analysis, the DPP accomplished two historic missions – moving from an authoritarian regime toward democracy, and affirming the identity and status of the country. Lee said Chen won public support by grasping these two historical missions, and the DPP elite were afraid of offending Chen and destroying the hope of the party’s supporters. This gave Chen the opportunity to abuse his power.
Hong Kong media are also playing up this scandal. The pro-Beijing Takungpao questioned the “so-called democracy and rule of law” in Taiwan. It urged Hong Kong citizens to note that the system of “one person, one vote” generated such a leader as Chen and led to such an “unbearable, face-losing” outcome. Hong Kong democrats have long been fighting for the right to elect their leader, while pro-Beijing forces have argued that this could harm the city’s efficiency and economic development.
Even the mainstream newspaper Mingbao commented that a democratic system could change the administration but couldn’t ensure the incorruptibility of the government. It urged Hong Kong not to follow the political example set by Chen.
Nevertheless, Professor Joseph Yu-shek Cheng, secretary general of Hong Kong’s Civic Party, insisted that Taiwan’s experience didn’t mean choosing democracy is wrong. He pointed out that a democratic system requires a culture of democracy in order to properly function. “Although there has been this and that kind of problem in the democratic development of Taiwan, no Taiwanese claim they want to reject democracy,” he pointed out.
A mainland scholar, Professor Zhang Xuezhong from the East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai, contributed an article to the Lianhe Zaobao, a major Chinese newspaper in Singapore, stating that Chen’s case proves democracy’s superiority over authoritarianism.
Zhang admitted that democracy cannot ensure excellent, incorruptible leaders. “But if non-democracy or authoritarianism cannot provide the same assurance, the possibility of choosing unqualified leaders cannot serve as a strong reason to reject democracy,” he said.
The most significant distinction between democracy and despotism lies in whether the people are granted the right to judge the success or failure of a given policy or political decision and to evaluate and change the leaders based on their judgments, Zhang pointed out. This power in the hands of the people will minimize the possibility of corruption and abuse of power among leaders, he said.
Yang Hengjin, a famous mainland critic who is familiar with Western democracy, commented that Chen was the one who played the game of democracy well but later forget the essence of it – to let the people to be the “owners” of the country. No system in the world can possibly stop corruption, he said, but the balance of power, oversight by the media and the citizens’ right to information can at least make public figures think twice before doing evil things.
