Font size: 
The release surprised people in Taiwan and mainland China, and has drawn heated discussions among them. The whole affair is being closely watched by interested observers on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Taiwanese learned of the release on Saturday morning TV news programs, as the local newspapers missed the story of Chen’s morning trial and release. In an opinion poll by local newspaper China Times, 52 percent of respondents said they considered Chen’s crimes serious and opposed his release from jail.
There are conditions in Taiwan’s legal system that allow the detention of someone who hasn’t been proved guilty – he should be judged likely to flee, to eliminate evidence, or to collaborate with others to fabricate evidence. Since Chen had been in custody since mid-November, the judge ruled that none of these conditions applied and he should therefore no longer be detained.
Some countries, including mainland China, routinely keep suspects in custody during the investigation process, before and after charges are filed. Chen’s party, the Democratic Progressive Party, argued that Chen should be presumed innocent under Taiwan’s modern legal system. The party accused the government prosecutors of detaining him in order to extract a confession.
Judge Zhou Zhan-Chun made the decision to release Chen late Friday night, after prosecutors failed to convince him that Chen intended to flee the country, or that his release would jeopardize the case.
On Wednesday, Taiwan’s High Court called for another hearing on the matter, after prosecutors appealed the lower court’s decision to release the former president.
The DPP has claimed that Chen’s arrest and prosecution are the result of political persecution from the ruling Kuomintang party. However, nearly 50 percent of Taiwanese polled viewed Chen’s release as proof of judicial independence.
Opinions on the other side of the Taiwan Strait projected a somewhat different view.
Media critic An Ti felt compelled to explain Taiwan’s legal system and practice to mainland readers, some of whom said they finally understood why Zhou released Chen – who was considered an arch-enemy of mainland China during his time in office. An explained that Zhou, as a judge, was not involved with politics and was required to uphold the legal system.
The explanations were no doubt instructive to many mainlanders, who are used to China’s system, in which the rights of the accused are routinely ignored. There have been cases in which defendants were detained before trial for a longer period than the prison terms they finally received. In cases where a travesty of justice is proved, Chinese authorities simply offer compensation, without addressing the system’s failings.
If Chen’s case had occurred in China, netizens pointed out, it would have been handled very differently. First of all, a man in such a powerful position would never have been charged, some said. Others remarked that the amount of money involved was very little compared with the funds embezzled by Chinese officials.
Some Chinese voiced the opinion that Chen’s release implied a behind-the-scenes deal with the judge, as would most likely have occurred in the mainland.
If the court reverses its decision, Chen could be back in detention for up to three months. Taiwanese law allows a defendant to be held for two months ahead of trial, which can be renewed for a maximum of another two months.
The pursuit of justice in Chen’s case is sure to be riddled with accusations of political motivation, no matter what occurs. The challenge to the judiciary is to ensure a careful and thorough investigation and a fair trial in an impartial court. In the international eye, it will be Taiwan’s legal system that is on trial in this high-profile case.
