Eight Formosa magazine figures are given a lengthy opportunity to present their defense before a court made up of five judges. The prosecution asks for convictions on charges of sedition
One of the longest trials in the Republic of China's history was concluded on Friday, the 28th of March. The eight sedition defendants in the Kaohsiung incident case had been given unprecedented opportunity to present their case. Fifteen attorneys represented them. Each defendant spoke freely and openly in the presence of the domestic and world press, members of their families and representatives of human rights organizations in the United States and Britain.
All had confessed (although all but one sought to repudiate these confessions at the trial) to involvement in the Kaohsiung incident, which resulted in injury to 183 police personnel, for political purposes. The essential facts were not at issue. The question before the judges was whether the defendants were guilty of the crime of sedition, which carries the death penalty, or whether they were trying to influence the government by going to the "brink of violence" but not beyond.
The defendants, all associated with the Formosa magazine, were Huang Hsin-chieh, 52, a member of the Legislative Yuan; Shih Ming-teh, 39; Yao Chia-wen, 42, attorney; Chang Chun-hung, 42, member of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly; Lin Yi-hsiung, 39, member of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly; Lin Hung-hsuan; Miss Lu Hsiu-lien, 36; and Miss Chen Chu, 30. In general, they maintained that they were not seeking to overthrow the government but to reform it and seek more parliamentary seats for "Taiwanese." At the same time, they denied seeking "Taiwan independence" and said they were opposed to Communism. The court was investigating discrepancies between the confessions and testimony; it also was investigating claims of the defendants that they had been intimidated or cajoled into confessing.
In his summation of March 26, the prosecutor dropped the indictment recommendation of clemency and called for "the most severe of the possible punishments." He said "The accused in this case were deceived by seditious elements to attempt to overthrow the government through illegal activities by escalating the degree of violence and to carry out the seditious goal of 'Taiwan independence.' As the evidence of their crimes is established, I beg the court to punish them in accordance with law."
The prosecution said the defendants had shown intent to overthrow the government by illegal means and then had committed overt acts in pursuit of this objective. He cited the "criminal intent" of Huang Hsin-chieh to carry out 'united front activities for the Chinese Communists and to engage in the seditious activities of the "Taiwan independence movement." Huang admitted providing an NT$500,000 check as a guaranty in raising money for the "Taiwan independence" cause.
The "group of five" (Shih Ming-teh, Yao Chia-wen, Lin Yi-hsiung, Chang Chun-hung and Hsu Hsin-liang, the last now in the United States) was instructed by Huang Hsin-chieh, the prosecution said, to formulate a so-called "long-range power-seizure plan" with the Formosa magazine offices as the central core in sponsoring activities to gain sympathizers and win political power. A short-range plan was developed to use mobs, rallies, parades and demonstrations even at the risk of bloodshed "to quickly overthrow the government" by escalating the scale of violence.
According to the prosecution statement, Lin Hung-hsuan, Lu Hsiu-lien and Chen Chu admitted maintaining close connections with Chang Tsan-hung, president of the "World United Formosans for Independence," while in the United States. Upon his return to Taiwan, Lin sent materials to Chang, then returned to the United States and received US$5,000 from Chang for delivery to the defendant Yao Chia-wen for seditious activities.
As for the role of Formosa magazine, the prosecution said it was used to provide a legal cover for the illegalities of all the defendants. Eleven offices were opened within the period of a few months and 13 mass activities organized. Locales were moved from indoors to outdoors and the form of activities escalated from lecture meetings to violent parades and demonstrations. The Kaohsiung incident, said the prosecution summation, "was absolutely not a development of accidental or irrational behavior. To the contrary, it was an organized and systematic expression of violence engineered by the accused under the cover of the Formosa magazine as a step to carry out their so-called 'power-seizure Plan.' There is clear evidence indicating the overt act of the accused was an attempt to overthrow the government."
With regard to the confessions and the attempt to repudiate them, the summation said the defendants "frankly admitted their offenses not only during interrogation conducted by the Bureau of Investigation but also during the investigation conducted by the military prosecutor of the Taiwan Garrison Command and during the examination by the military court after they had been indicted." The prosecutor said that statements on file clearly indicate that the confessions were made of the defendants' free will. Chen Chu admitted this and thereby corroborated the other confessions, the prosecutor said.
The summation cited violation of Article 2 of the Statute Governing the Punishment for Sedition, Article 72 of the Criminal Law of the Armed Forces and Articles 136 and 150 of the Criminal Code. The offense was the "overt act of attempting to overthrow the government by illegal means," the prosecutor said, and the claims of the defendants to have been advocating "Taiwan independence" without engaging in sedition against the government are to be dismissed as "crafty deception."
The trial opened March 18 in the Taipei suburban courtroom of the Taiwan Garrison Command. Wire service reports of the proceedings abroad included one erroneous story that was subsequently corrected by the Associated Press upon the request of the director general of the Government Information Office. Further details of the testimony and the judgments of the court will appear in the May issue of the Free China Review.
The background of the Kaohsiung incident can be briefly summarized as follows:
Supported by the "Taiwan independence movement" abroad and with some involvement of the Chinese Communists on the mainland, the defendants and others established the Formosa magazine in the middle of last year. The publication was less important than the apparatus it concealed. Offices were opened in all major cities of Taiwan. Oppositionists were recruited for these cells with the appeal of action ism in a bid for political power.
Only two issues of the magazine were published before the Kaohsiung incident on December 10. But the magazine offices were busily engaged in sponsoring meetings, holding lectures and parading and demonstrating. Money and endorsements were solicited abroad under cover of human rights and "justice for the Taiwanese" against mainlanders depicted as heavy-handed oppressors.
After only a few months, the Formosa gang reached the conclusion that the government was afraid to take countermeasures. Exponents of force and violence said the government could be overthrown by rallying the 85 per cent of native-born people among the Taiwan population of 17½ million. This amounted to a complete misreading of the government's refusal to be goaded into action against the magazine and against those who hid their intended sedition behind its pages. From the beginning, the government was aware of what was going on but hoped that the gang would be dissuaded by its failure to win mass support.
Government authorities pledged full protection of human rights and tried to persuade the Formosa group that in the light of the ROC-Taiwan situation, disunity and worse would be playing into the hands of the Chinese Communists. Hopes of reasonableness were encouraged by the fact that all of the noise made by Formosa did not make much of an impression on the people.
Fearing to lose the momentum of what they had begun, the Formosa ringleaders decided to step up the tempo of confrontation. They applied for a police permit to hold an outdoor rally and parade of 30,000 participants in Kaohsiung, the second largest city of the island. With more than a million people, Kaohsiung is also a center of heavy industry and one of the major ports of the Far East. The Kaohsiung demonstration of strength was to be followed by an even bigger challenge to the government in Taipei.
The police declined the permit for several reasons. They did not have the personnel to handle such a gathering. Notice was too short, and the occasion of World Human Rights Day did not seem to be a sufficient excuse for a function of such size. In the past, Human Rights Day had been marked by only a handful of people, if at all. The Formosa sponsors did not take no for an answer. They went ahead with their plans and told their various offices around the island to send strong-arm elements to Kaohsiung. From that moment on, the parade and rally were regarded as showdowns against government authority and power. Even so, the government tried to compromise by not standing in the way of a rally of reasonable size at the magazine's headquarters.
In the end, the Formosa turnout was only around 300 despite the hope of producing 30,000 supporters. There was at first no interference with the rally. Police forces of 200 or so merely stood by to observe and keep order. They were aware that the leaders had massed clubs, rocks, other missiles and even bottles filled with gasoline. The scene was illuminated by scores of flaming torches. Sound trucks were on hand for the broadcast of inflammatory speeches. The intention of the fomenters was to carry out the illegal parade on Kaohsiung streets, seeking the support of some 20,000 bystanders for a violent clash with police.
The 300 paraded but were not reinforced by the crowd. Police gave ground at first, then were ordered to take a stand in the defense of private and public property and to uphold the law. They were armed only with shields and billies and under orders to protect themselves as best they could without striking back. That order was carried out to the letter. One hundred and eighty-three civil and military policemen were injured, many of them seriously, but the rioters were unscathed. During the several hours of violence, Formosa leaders called on their followers to attack the police lines. They also called upon spectators to come to their assistance. Instead, a number of onlookers helped the police. Some, speaking as Taiwanese to Taiwanese, begged the demonstrators to desist. Most of the police were Taiwanese, but the ranks of the rioters included even foreigners.
Tear gas finally turned back and then dispersed the marchers. No arrests were made on the spot. The authorities reasoned that enough damage had been done for one night. They did not wish to strain tempers further. As the days went by, only about 100 rioters were arrested or questioned. Some 200 others who played relatively passive roles were not sought out. A number were released after interrogation. Finally, 53 were indicted; only 8 faced trial by the military court on charges of sedition.
The formal indictment by the prosecutor of the Taiwan Garrison Command set forth the charges against the eight ringleaders in detail. A summary of the indictment will be found in The month in Free China department of this issue. In conclusion, the prosecutor said that the defendants had admitted their mistakes and shown repentance. He therefore requested that leniency be shown in the sentencing. From the beginning, the government's position has been "to heal, not to hate."
Once the investigation was completed, the eight defendants charged with sedition were allowed free access to some 400 attorneys registered with the military court. Fifteen lawyers were chosen by the defendants themselves; the attorneys met with their clients and with the court.
The government and military courts cooperated with foreign sources who expressed concern about the trial and human rights in Taiwan. Delegates of the American Bar Association and a representative of Amnesty International visited Taiwan prisons and talked to families of the defendants. Charges of torture and violation of human rights were categorically answered by the appearance and testimony of the defendants in open court. All major world news agencies, television networks and several major foreign news papers were represented in the courtroom.
Although the trial was conducted under Chinese law and in keeping with the Chinese philosophy of justice, this implied no lack of consideration for the rights of the defendants. Five judges sat on the court. The military jurisdiction was necessitated by the fact that Taiwan is under relaxed but nevertheless essential martial law. The very facts of the case, the existence of the "Taiwan independence movement," its dedication to destruction of the government and its connections with the Chinese Communists demonstrated the necessity for measures of security transcending those provided by a civil government. However, military courts preside over a system of justice which differs little from that practiced in the civil courts. An unsupported confession is not considered evidence of guilt. Life and death sentences are subject to automatic appeal.
Neither the Kaohsiung incident nor the trial was allowed to interfere with the processes of freedom and democracy in the Republic of China. The government went ahead with plans to resume the general elections that were called off in December of 1978 because of the U.S. recognition of the Chinese Communists. Tentative plans call for doubling the number of seats to be filled in the Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly. Legislators are now revising the election law. In the last general election, opponents of the Kuomintang majority party won a sizable number of the con tests. The very fast that hundreds of thousands of voters preferred non-governmental candidates shows the absurdity of foreign charges that the Kaohsiung incident arrests have "liquidated the opposition."
In the aftermath of Kaohsiung; the intention of the government and of the people of Taiwan is to get on with the tasks of building a model province to continue convincing the people of the mainland that the "Taiwan way" sets the political and economic example for all of China. The Kaohsiung arrests had to be carried out and the defendants tried because the conspiracy and its implementation involved an attempt to overthrow the government by force and violence. Sedition and treason are outside the pale in every country. However, every step from arrest to trial and punishment has been taken under the law and with full protection for the rights of the accused.
From this point forward, government and people hope that the wounds left by the Kaohsiung incident can be healed and the nation can move forward in unity. There is no objection to criticism and opposition. Sedition has to be proscribed to defend nation and people against the "Taiwan independence movement" and its alliance with the Chinese Communists.
Decision of the judges was expected within 60 days. In closing the trial, the presiding judge took note of the difficulties and pressures of the case but said that judgments would be considered solemnly, sincerely and in the spirit of the law. The identity of the judges was not revealed because of security considerations but may be announced after the judgments are handed down.
At the final session of the court March 28, the day before the Youth Day national holiday, the defendants emotionally thanked the judges for a fair hearing. After learning of the murders of the mother and twin daughters of another defendant (Lin Yi-hsiung), Shih Ming-teh, who was the general manager of Formosa magazine, asked the court to give him the death sentence. He urged his supporters and those who oppose him to put down their fists and "convert anger into a force for peace in Taiwan."
Nine days were devoted to the trial. In part this led to a Newsweek cover story featuring the portrait of President Chiang Ching-kuo and titled "Taiwan's Turning Point." There seemed to be total agreement that the Republic of China had conducted itself well and had kept faith with freedom, democracy and human rights in a trying and extremely difficult period.