Confucius was asked whether injury should be requited with kindness. He replied: "How then will you requite kindness? Requite injury with justice and kindness with kindness."
Defendants in the Sedition Case of Huang Hsin-chieh and Others, which has been widely referred to as the Kaohsiung incident, received both justice and kindness in the April 18 judgment of the Taiwan Garrison Command court. The five judges found the eight defendants guilty of sedition as charged but tempered the sentences with leniency growing out of repentance. There was one life sentence and one sentence of 14 years. The other six defendants received 12-year sentences.
Shih Ming-teh, 39, general manager of the Formosa magazine, was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his case, the court had little choice. Shih has been twice convicted of sedition. While serving in the armed forces, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition, but the sentence was reduced to 15 years under the commutation law of 1975 and he was released in 1977. Huang Hsin-chieh, 52, member of the Legislative Yuan and the publisher of Formosa, received the 14-year sentence.
Sentenced to 12 years were:
- Yao Chia-wen, 42, attorney and circulation controller of Formosa magazine.
- Chang Chun-hung, 42, member of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly and chief editor of Formosa.
- Lin Yi-shiung, 39, member of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly and circulation controller of Formosa.
- Lin Hung-hsuan, 38, executive of the Kaohsiung office of Formosa.
- Miss Lu Hsiu-lien, 36, deputy director of Formosa.
- Miss Chen Chu, 30, deputy director of the Kaohsiung office of Formosa.
The maximum sentence for sedition is death. Any or all of the defendants could have been sentenced to execution by the firing squad. The sentences of Shih and Huang were automatically appealed to the justice department of the Ministry of National Defense, which has jurisdiction because Taiwan is under martial law as a result of the Communist insurrection. The other six defendants were given 10 days in which to appeal.
Public opinion as reflected by man-in-the-street interviews carried out by the communications media reflected belief that the sentences were on the lenient side and less severe than many people wished. The prosecution asked for leniency in the indictment, then called for severe punishments in its closing statement. This seemed to grow out of changes in the attitudes of the defendants, who took on the courage to defy the prosecution as a result of the free speech and openness of the trial procedures. The court said the eight had been sentenced as required by their crimes but with due regard to a showing of mercy. In addition to imprisonment, Shih lost his civil rights for life and the others for 10 years. As is the case in guilty judgments for other major crimes, the defendants gave up all their properties to the state except for those required to defray the living expenses of their dependents.
In their summing up, the judges said that the Republic of China is an independent country exercising its sovereignty through a government based on and organized under the Constitution. Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. Although the government moved its seat to Taiwan as a result of the Chinese Communist rebellion and occupation of the mainland, the government of the Republic of China has never renounced its sovereignty over the government and people.
To safeguard the country's legal rights and the well-being of the people, the judges continued, illegal acts undermining the governmental system, the national territories or the Constitution are punishable under the law. Regardless of any interpretation of the law, those who advocate "Taiwan independence" are committing a seditious crime. The defendants harbored seditious intent, used the Formosa magazine as a cover, formulated so-called "power-seizure plans," repeatedly called for violation of the country's martial law, and held illegal rallies, parades and demonstrations to extract concessions from the government. They initiated the Kaohsiung incident, attempting to subvert the government by gradually escalating their activities of violence.
All this was carried out with seditious intent. By attempting to subvert the government by illegal means and carrying out subversive activities, the defendants violated the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Statute Governing the Punishment for Sedition. In massing people at the scene of the riot and instigating the rioters to attack security personnel, the defendants violated the first paragraph of Article 72 of the Criminal Law of the Armed Forces by assembling people for purposes of violence and making threats and violated Article 136 of the Criminal Code by engaging in a public assembly to threaten public functionaries with violence and prevent them from carrying out their legal functions. Since the violence was carried out in the course of fomenting sedition, the more severe penalties for that crime must be invoked, the judges said.
The judgment concluded: These crimes have damaged the social order and were dangerous to national security. The defendants cannot be excused. But because they were misled by overseas seditious elements or by their own mistaken ideas, and because they have shown repentance for what happened, the court is able to temper their sentences with mercy.
In their review of the facts involved, the judges pointed to evidence that each of the defendants harbored the intention to subvert the government and achieve "Taiwan independence." Several of the defendants had contacts with "independence" organizations abroad and received or were benefited by money from such sources. Some of them traveled in the United States or Japan, where they carne under the influence of seditionists. Huang was involved in a scheme to raise sedition funds by importing eel fry from the Chinese main land. Through his arrangements, an agent went to the mainland and was in contact with Chinese Communist political elements. From the Communists came a message that if the "independence movement" succeeded in seizing power, Taiwan would be made an "autonomous district" with Huang as governor.
The "five-member group" of Shih Ming-teh, Yao Chia-wen, Chang Chung-huang, Lin Yi-hsiung and Hsu Hsin-liang decided to establish Formosa magazine as a cover for their "independence" advocacies. A long-range power seizure plan called for the use of the periodical to sponsor various activities attracting people from all walks of life and paving the way for the seizure of political control of the state. The short-range plan called for manipulation of the people through rallies, parades and demonstrations leading to violence and the overthrow of the government.
The defendants admitted from the outset that the purposes of the magazine were purely political. This quickly became evident in the 13 offices opened from that in Taipei September 8 to that in Pingtung December 8. The number of persons attending these "openings" was drastically increased. Meetings were moved from indoors to outdoors. Methods advanced from simple lectures to torch parades and demonstrations marked by violence. Government prohibitions were ignored. On December 6, Yao Chia-wen formulated five guiding principles for the movement: indirect approach, flexibility, concentration, solidarity and strength. The last was frequently described as "going to the brink of violence."
All this led inevitability to the bigger show of violence involved in the Kaohsiung incident (see Free China Review of April, 1980). Of the security forces that stood their ground against this "power seizure attempt," 183 were injured, some of them seriously. The unarmed police defended themselves as best they could with sticks. In the end, fearful of loss of life, the security forces commander ordered the use of smoke and tear gas to break up the march.
A lengthy section of the judgment sets forth conclusive evidence proving that the defendants had the intention of overthrowing the government by illegal means.
Huang Hsin-chieh said that after his election to the Legislative Yuan, he found his powers still too small to satisfy his political ambitions. He was dissatisfied with the government and wanted to replace it. After U.S. establishment of diplomatic relations with the Chinese Communists, he felt that people were uncertain about the future of the government. He thought that this could be exploited through development of the "independence movement." This led to setting up of the "five-member group" and development of the Formosa magazine strategy.
Yao Chia-wen said he was influenced by Peng Ming-min's "independence" thinking while a student at National Taiwan University in 1966. While in the United States in 1972, he had contacts with several "Taiwan independence" leaders operating in that country. He returned to Taiwan with the view that the province should be separated from the mainland. This eventually led him into the "five-member group" and to the conclusion that "independence" was the only solution for the "Taiwan problem."
Shih Ming-teh admitted that he got out of prison only to return to the advocacy of "independence." Much of the Formosa magazine strategy and the planning of the Kaohsiung showing of violence were attributable to him.
Chang Chun-hung said he had been thinking in terms of "Taiwan independence" for several years. He said he agreed with Hsu Hsin-liang that once the Republic of China had departed from the United States, "independence" became essential.
Lin Yi-Hsiung said he began thinking of "independence" in 1975 as a result of election disappointments. After the diplomatic break with the United States, he concluded that "independence" provided the only means of survival.
Lin Hung-hsuan said his "independence" views were based on the declaration of the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan in August of 1977. He was also influenced by "independence" advocates in the United States.
Lu Hsiu-lien said she was influenced by Chang Wei-chia of the World United Formosans for Independence in France in July of 1970. She read books on the "independence movement" and became an active participant in the conspiracy.
Chen Chu said she was influenced in favor of "independence" while serving as secretary to Kuo Yu-hsin in 1970. She went to the United States in 1979 and made contact with various "independence movement" leaders. All of them agreed that the time for peaceful efforts had ended and that violence was required.
Each defendant was represented by two defense attorneys of his own choice. Counsel were present at the court and active throughout the trial. Learned in the law, they took advantage of every possible loophole to develop new lines of defense for their clients. The record of the judgments reveals that the judges gave the most careful consideration to all of the legal concepts presented by the defense. These were some of the points raised and the views of the court:
1. - Challenges to military jurisdiction and right of trial. It was argued that the defendants were not military personnel on active service and therefore should not be tried by a military court. It was also maintained that martial law in Taiwan had not been approved by the Legislative Yuan and should therefore be considered invalid, and that the military court of the Taiwan Garrison Command should have no jurisdiction and that a higher trial court should be organized by the Ministry of National Defense.
The court noted that the Sedition Law provides that trials for sedition should be under the military. The order invoking martial law was promulgated by the Taiwan Garrison Command on May 19, 1949, and become effective the next day. The Executive Yuan Council invoked martial law for Taiwan and certain other areas November 2, 1949, and this was approved by the Legislative Yuan March 16, 1950. Article 10 and Article 44 of the Military Trial Law designates the Taiwan Garrison Command as a higher military trial organ with jurisdiction over sedition trials of the first instance. Huang Hsin-chieh, a member of the Legislative Yuan, has the equivalent rank of general and was entitled to be tried by a higher court. However, the Ministry of National Defense delegated its authority to the Taiwan Garrison Command under provisions of the Military Trial Law.
2. - Challenges to the introduction of testimony of defendants at the court's investigative session of February 21-23. It was argued that this was not an open session and attorneys were not present.
The court said that while the provision for defense lawyers is set forth in the law, they had not been designated at the time of the investigative session. However, the court designated public advocates, so the procedure was legal.
3. - Challenges regarding confessions of the defendants. The defense argued that the case against the defendants was entirely based on the confessions and that these were improperly extracted.
The court held that under the Military Trial Law, confessions can be used in evidence if corroborated by other facts. The confessions were borne out by substantive evidence. As for pressure, the defendants themselves attested to the contrary. The Bureau of Investigation has similarly testified. All of the defendants admitted that they harbored seditious intentions. Furthermore, the essential portions of confessions are in agreement; they are not contradictory. The court carried out its own investigation of charges that confessions were not based on the free will of the defendants and found nothing to substantiate the complaint. The court remarked that "The defendants have received higher education and have had a wide social experience. Some of them have been lawyers for years. They should have realized the consequences of confession." In other words, if the defendants were innocent, they would have been able to resist the psychological pressures involved in any confession process. They were not tortured or otherwise abused.
4. - Challenges to the accusation of sedition. . Attorneys for the defense maintained that the "five-member group" was organized only after suspension of the 1978 elections and that it was intended as a study group and did not engage in any attempt to subvert the government. They said the long-range and short-range "power-seizure plans" were inventions of the prosecutors and not evidence of a crime. They claimed that the five working principles were for political purposes and not those of sedition. Strength, the lawyers said, is not synonymous with violence.
The court ruled that three defendants had attested the five-man group was set up to plan anti-government activities. Formosa magazine was established to win concessions from the government and, failing that, to provide a vehicle for anti-government violence. Violence was implied in the plans and actions of the defendants from the beginning.
5. - Challenges maintaining that the activities of Formosa magazine were legal and that the riot was an accident resulting from the crackdown of the security forces. The defense insisted that no incitement to violence was called for and that the defendants did not carry lethal weapons. The summoning of witnesses was requested together with a statement from the government authorities responsible for suppressing the riot.
The court observed that Formosa magazine had been a cover for activities intended to generate social unrest, force concessions from the government and carry out subversion. As for the rallies conducted by the magazine, the court said these were intended to distort facts, sow seeds of discord and disturb social order. Formosa was established, the judges said, with the seditious intention of overthrowing the government through illegal means. Because the defendants attacked the police, and not government organizations per se, it cannot be maintained that they did not have seditious intentions.
Regarding the defense's requests for further investigations, the court said in effect that every thing had already been investigated. Photos of the riot are on file. Medical records attest to the injuries inflicted on security personnel. The Kaohsiung incident was obviously not an accident and the summoning of additional witnesses would change nothing. The plans for an illegal rally are on the record. In any event, the Kaohsiung incident was only one in a series of seditious actions by the defendants. Also on the court's records was a letter from the Southern Taiwan Garrison Command prescribing in detail how the defendants incited the rioters to attack security personnel. The court said: "Disposition of the anti-riot forces and the release of tear gas can in no way help the defendants absolve themselves of criminal responsibility. In fact, the tear gas was released after the defendants had once again instigated the rioters to resort to violence. "
6. - Challenges to the contention that the defendants had connections with seditious elements abroad and received financial support from them. The defense said that the overseas contacts of three of the defendants were not made known to the others. Funds from abroad were donated to Formosa magazine and not to a seditious conspiracy, the defense lawyers added, and this was not improper.
The court said three of the defendants had contacts with seditious elements abroad and that they had told other defendants of this. In other words, the defendants collaborated in their seditious intentions. The common goal was to subvert the government and seize political power. Since Formosa magazine was a principal element of the seditious conspiracy, money contributed to it was for the purposes of sedition. There was no denial of the fact that the funding came from anti government elements abroad.
7 - Challenges regarding Huang Hsin-chieh. The defense claimed that Huang did not have a close relationship with Hung Chih-liang, who was involved in the proposed import of eel fry from the Chinese mainland and therefore could not have discussed such a matter. The NT$500,000 made available to Hung was represented as a loan.
The court pointed out that investigation had revealed that Huang Hsin-chieh discussed import of the eel fry with Hung Chih-liang, directed him to approach the Chinese Communist "embassy" in Tokyo and provided NT$500,000 in guaranty money.
8 - Challenges in the cases of Shih Ming-teh, Yao Chia-wen and Chang Chun-hung. The defense argued that Shih was of the view that Taiwan should be independent and actually had been so for the last 30 years. Especially since the U.S. severance of diplomatic relations, he had considered that the Republic of China was an independent country on Taiwan. He was also of the conviction that in a democratic country, any group may consider overthrow of the government by legal means. He established Formosa magazine as a "political party without a name" to develop the democratic political movement. Yen Chia-wen and Chang Chun-hung said they sought political reform and were not attempting to seize political power.
The court reiterated that the defendants advocated Taiwan's "independence" from the Republic of China and harbored seditious intentions. In maintaining that Taiwan has been independent for 30 years, they denied the legal sovereignty of the Republic of China, renounced their country's history and culture, and negated the efforts of the people to recover the mainland and liberate their compatriots there. They also furthered the united front intrigues of the Communists. Because the government asked the United States for government-to-government relations after the severance of diplomatic ties did not imply that the government was accepting "two Chinas." The Republic of China is a sovereign state and its existence is an international fact. Its international position and personality cannot be altered by the recognition policy of another country. The Chinese Communists are a rebellious group which cannot represent the Republic of China, and their recognition by the United States or any other country does not affect the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of China. The rights of the people to political participation are guaranteed under the Constitution. However, these rights are to be exercised under the law and in accordance with the normal practices of democracy. The defendants attempted to incite the people to violence. This sort of political participation is proscribed by law and practice. All subversive activities are illegal; there can be no legal subversion. All of the defendants were associated with Formosa magazine, which was undeniably an instrument for subversion and sedition. The fact of the magazine's legality in terms of registration cannot exonerate any of the defendants from criminal liability for the misuse of Formosa.
9. - Challenges in the case of Lin Yi-hsiung. It was maintained that he had no close relations with Chang Chin-che (who was supposed to have influenced him) and that since Lin was the better educated, this wasn't possible. Three books by Lin were said to have been written by Lin to express his views on lawsuits growing out of election campaigns. He also wrote a letter published by the United Daily News stating that nonpartisans had no seditious intentions. He was not instructed by Huang Hsin-chieh to participate in the five-member group or to study the long-range and short-range "power-seizure plans." So he could not be held responsible for what happened in any legal sense. Furthermore, he was circulation controller of the magazine and did not instigate the rioters at Kaohsiung.
The court noted that Lin had said he was influenced by Kuo Yu-hsin's failure at the polls and became interested in the "independence movement." In Chao Liu magazine, he advocated "countering force with force and violence with violence." The court did not use the three books in evidence against him. Contrary to the defense position, he admitted being instructed to participate in the five-member group and study the plans for power seizure.
10. - Challenges in the case of Lin Hung-hsuan. The defense position was that Lin had associated with Chang Fu-hsiung, a seditious element, as a former classmate and friend, and that Lin did not know of Chang's views. Furthermore, Lin was said not to have participated in any "independence" organizations and to have gone to work for Formosa magazine to make a living and not with seditious intent. He did not know about any power seizure plans and was unaware of the five principles.
The court observed that Lin had communicated with seditious elements abroad and served as liaison for them. Returning to Taiwan from overseas, he maintained communications with these elements and carried out assignments for them. He admitted advocating "Taiwan independence." In letters to his contacts abroad, he stipulated willingness to "do this kind of work." He participated in planning of the Kaohsiung incident. He was completely aware of the intentions of the five-member group and of the plans for power seizure. His letters to Chang Tsan-hung abroad were clear evidence of his seditious activities and intentions.
11. - Challenges in the case of Miss Lu Hsiu-lien. She was said by the defense to have had only fleeting contacts with seditious elements abroad and not to have known of their work and connections. It was therefore maintained that she couldn't have been subverted by the "independence movement" abroad. She returned to Taiwan in September, 1978, and became deputy director of Formosa magazine in August, 1979. She did not collaborate in the magazine's program of violence and sedition.
The court said Miss Lu had admitted being influenced by Chang Wei-chia, Chang Tsan-hung and Chang Chin-che and to have engaged in many "independence" activities abroad. She was instigated by Chang Tsan-hung to return to Taiwan and propagate "independence movement" thought. She said that her ideas were similar to those of Shih Ming-teh and the others, and that she favored "Taiwan independence." She said she joined their undertakings, using her writings and speaking to support the "independence" cause. She joined the magazine to further that cause and the length of time cannot alter her participation or intentions.
12. - Challenges in the case of Miss Chen Chu. According to the defense, her meetings with seditious elements in the United States cannot be regarded as proof of her own intentions. She was not a member of the Formosa inner circle and purportedly did not know of the power-seizure plans, the principles and the decision to go to the "brink of violence." She had political ambitions, the defense lawyers said, but was not bent on violence. A payment of 300,000 yen she received from Taki Genziro was represented as her salary and not a payment from Kuo Yu-hsin.
The court expressed the opinion that Miss Lu had been under the influence of Kuo Yu-hsin for years and harbored seditious intentions. She admitted connections with seditious elements overseas. She participated in planning for the Kaohsiung incident. The 300,000 yen was identified by Taki Genziro as money for seditious purposes. The defense contention that this fund was for her salary cannot be considered tenable.
Seven of the defendants, from left: front row, Huang, Yao and H.H. Lin; back row, Chang, Chen, Shih and Lu. (File photo)
From beginning to end of the nine-day trial, the court went out of its way to assure that every contention of the defendants was heard in detail. This is not customary in the legal system of the Republic of China, which resembles that of continental Europe and the rest of Asia rather than that of the United States and Great Britain. Defendants are not ordinarily accorded such extensive rights, since they are considered guilty in the light of the charges brought against them. The Kaohsiung incident defendants were also considered guilty but were given an unparalleled opportunity — by Chinese standards — to prove that they were not.
The trial was unique in the juridical history of the Republic of China. Although the suburban Taipei courtroom is small, 120 seats were set aside for the press, family members of the defendants, scholars, legal experts, representatives of parliamentary bodies and foreign observers. Foreign press representatives included those of the Associated Press, United Press International, Agencie France Presse, Reuters, ABC, Time, Newsweek, New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
Huang Hsin-chieh was the first of the defendants to appear before the five-man tribunal for questioning. He expressed high regard for the government and President Chiang Ching-kuo. He expressed regret for the Kaohsiung incident and urged the people not to support the "independence movement."
It was not his intention, Huang said, to attempt to overthrow the government. Rather, he hoped to bring together all non-Kuomintang forces to win more elections, augment his political power and fulfill his political ambitions. He denied knowledge of a "power-seizure plan" worked out by a five-member group of his magazine, and said he had no foreknowledge of the Kaohsiung violence. He said he signed his confession after a lengthy period of interrogation. He denied that he had been tortured and thanked Taiwan Garrison Command personnel for humanitarian treatment.
Lin Hung-hsuan took the stand on the morning of the trial's second day. He admitted meeting Chang Tsan-hung, a leader of the Taiwan "independence movement," and others of like mind while visiting the United States in 1978 and 1979. A minister of the Presbyterian Church, he was influenced by a Presbyterian manifesto of August, 1977, calling for the independence of Taiwan. But he did not necessarily favor a change in government, Lin said.
Testifying at the afternoon session March 19 was Miss Lu Hsiu-lien, who claimed she had been subjected to psychological pressure during interrogation. The presiding judge announced that the court would investigate such charges. Such an inquiry was also sought by the prosecution. The Harvard-educated Miss Lu acknowledged mixing with known members of the Taiwan "independence movement" while in the United States and said she took part in two anti-government demonstrations at Boston in 1978. But she claimed she herself did not advocate independence.
As to charges that she had made an inflammatory speech at Kaohsiung, Miss Lu said she couldn't remember. However, she admitted having said that the Republic of China did not possess legal sovereignty over Taiwan. She said she drew this conclusion from her study of international law. Asked about the defendants' doctrine of "brinkmanship," she said it was advocated by Yao Chia-wen but for use as a negotiating device and not to produce violence.
Shih Ming-teh, who had been described as the ringleader of the Kaohsiung incident, came before the court March 20. He admitted to the advocacy of Taiwan "independence" but said this did not imply changing the government. He also admitted that the Kaohsiung rally was his idea and said the government had been expected to yield to the demands of the demonstrators. Clubs and other weapons were purchased for "self-defense," he said.
Formosa magazine, he said, was established to promote a political party to oppose the Kuomintang but maintained this concept did not extend to the point of "power seizure." The idea was to go the brink of violence but not over it. He described the Kaohsiung incident as "unexpected." He kept in touch with Taiwanese elements in the United States, Shih said, but said he had no relations with the Chinese Communists or "independence" advocates.
Yao Chia-wen admitted that the Kaohsiung incident had taken the defendants to the edge of violence. He said Formosa was intended to further the power structure of the oppositionists and give them rank among government leaders. He said the defendants had been encouraged by success of the Iranian revolution.
When rioters attacked the police, Yao said, it was in expectation that they would retreat. He defined the Taiwan "independence movement" sentiments of the defendants as those of intention to oppose unification with the Chinese Communists. It was not overthrow of the government that he sought, Yao maintained, but reform.
When Yao urged the court to elicit more evidence in his favor, the presiding judge told him that the case was being tried justly, fairly and openly. If this were not the case, the judge added, the trial would have been concluded quickly. Yao also asked that all the defendants be present throughout the trial, but the judge told him that separate and individual testimony was taken in accordance with law to avoid collusion.
Following a week-end recess, Chang Chun-hung, took the stand on March 24. He admitted he was a member of the five-member group directing the magazine but asserted that overthrow of the government was not an objective. Rather, he told the court, the magazine sought to win more parliamentary seats for nonpartisans. He denied knowledge of a power-seizure plan, but said the branch offices of the magazine were established to promote sales and win support.
Reminded that in his confession he said the purpose of Formosa was to incite the people, he asserted that this statement was not made voluntarily. He admitted going to Kaohsiung to address the crowd assembled there and to have shouted "We have won" as the mob returned to the magazine office. He said this was intended to calm the rioters. As for the riot itself, he said it was a mistake and claimed that he attempted to prevent it.
Chang was followed to the stand by Miss Chen Chu, who was in the United States and Japan last year. She said she met with several overseas Chinese who opposed the government of the Republic of China. Some of these persons advocated violence, she said, but denied entering into any anti-government conspiracy with them. As the secretary of Kuo Yu-hsin, she said, she had come to believe that the government was unfair to Taiwanese. She said she wanted to work for a "fair and rightful" society.
Provincial Assemblyman Lin Yi-hsiung, the last of the eight defendants to testify, faced the court the morning of March 25. He said there was actually no "five-member group," and that this was merely a designation for the principal members of the magazine staff. He said that in practice the five often disagreed and reached few decisions. He denied the advocacy of "independence" but admitted that he once called the Kuomintang a "treasonable group" and suggested that nonpartisans use "force against force and violence against violence." The words were spoken in anger, he said, and he regretted them later and never resorted to violence.
All the defendants appeared together the afternoon of March 25, and for the next three days were given the privilege of making final pleas. The prosecution summed up with a call for severe punishments; this was in contrast with the original indictment request for leniency. The prosecution repeatedly maintained that the confessions were made voluntarily and without pressure.
Further testimony of the defendants produced no surprises. All continued to admit that they opposed the government but to deny that they were dedicated to its overthrow by force and violence. Shih Ming-teh said he would face the death penalty, if that would contribute to harmony and stability in Taiwan. The chief judge pledged that the court would consider its judgments solemnly and in keeping with the facts and the law.
Newspapers published what amounted to a full transcript of the trial proceedings, and the defendants were allowed to make full statements. Objections from counsel were noted, including the demands for investigation of the conditions under which the defendants confessed. The trial was not only historic in Chinese jurisprudence but unparalleled in Asia.
Many commentaries were published and broadcast after conclusion of the trial and again after pronouncement of the judgments. One of these post-trial assessments noted that defendants thanked the judges and attested they had had a fair hearing. This was the simple truth and no bid for sympathy. All eight of the defendants showed a willingness to confront and disagree with the prosecution. They were not cowed. But they acknowledged the fairness of the five judges and placed their reliance on the impartiality of the judgments.
This is not entirely an unprecedented trial. The Republic of China has an organized and effective legal system. Justice bears no resemblance to the kangaroo courts of the Chinese mainland. Defendants always have the right of counsel. If they do not wish to choose their own lawyer, the court appoints one. Judges are professionals trained in the law and of the highest moral character. Any judge found guilty of corruption is punished more severely than an ordinary felon.
Although the eight defendants were charged with sedition and therefore had to be tried in a military court, the law applied was virtually the same as in the civil courts. The eight had full right of appeal. They were just as free to defend themselves as they would have been in any other court in the country.
Press and people of the Republic of China expected reasonable and carefully considered judgments. In the indictment, the prosecution asked for leniency. In its summation, the prosecution did not. This may have been because of statements by the defendants during the trial, especially those which repudiated confessions in whole or in part. However, it is up to the court and not the prosecution to judge the confessions and the means of their exaction. Under the Chinese system of justice, the accused were considered guilty until proven innocent. In this case, there was never any doubt that the defendants planned and committed illegal acts. The defendants themselves were not precisely agreed on the level of their offenses: whether they were seditious or something less. In general, the eight admitted that they wanted to change things drastically. At various times some of them admitted that they believed in "Taiwan independence" or "two Chinas."
Given the realities of the Republic of China and Taiwan, it would be impossible to make Taiwan Province independent without overthrowing the government, and that couldn't very well be done without the use of force and violence.
Those who sat in on the trial — including a number of foreign observers — attested to its impartiality and freedom. They also noted that the defendants were completely at liberty to tell their whole story regardless of what may have been said in confessions and even to charge misuse of power by the authorities.
Despite all the talk about a separate Taiwan, we can be proud that Taiwan-mainlander differences played little if any part in the trial. As it turned out, we are a lot closer to unity than the defendants may have thought at the time of the Kaohsiung incident. In fact the chief idea man among the defendants called for unity as he addressed the court in the closing stages of the trial. Problems remain in the wake of the legal proceedings and will not be eliminated when the judgments are handed down. But a united Republic of China on Taiwan can solve these problems through the common endeavors of a determined people. It can do so, hopefully, without destroying the expectations of our compatriots on the mainland that Taiwan will one day serve as the model for all China. The trial itself showed that the mainland can learn from Taiwan in politics and justice as well as economics.
This commentary looking toward the future in the wake of the Kaohsiung incident was published after the announcement of the judgments:
Sentences have now been handed down. Some may say they were too lenient and others that they were too harsh. Regardless, the court labored long and hard to be fair and just. The judgment included more than 20,000 words of explanation. The life sentence for Shih Ming-teh was inescapable. He was a two-time loser, both times for the very serious crime of sedition. Without leniency, he could have been given the death sentence. Huang's sentence was two years longer than the other six because he was the responsible person in the conspiracy and a parliamentarian at that. His political ambitions were already attained, but he sought a shortcut to even greater power.
The Republic of China and its government have been unfairly criticized abroad in connection with the arrest and trial of the Kaohsiung incident perpetrators. The criticism comes from the uninformed and misinformed — mostly from those who don't like the Republic of China because they prefer the Chinese Communists. These are the people who should read carefully the judgment of the five-man court. This is not a document in the Western style. But it sets forth clearly enough the grounds on which the judges were compelled to find the eight defendants guilty as charged.
At the open and widely reported trial, much was made of supposed pressures involved in extracting the confessions. Obviously, no one was tortured. The defendants themselves attested they were not. All were in the best of health. They displayed no scars. Psychological pressure of one kind or another is always a factor in the confession process. The point in the Kaohsiung incident trial is that the confessions really didn't matter. Admissions made in open court substantiated the fact that a conspiracy had been entered into and implemented to overthrow the government.
Although the defendants insisted that they did not mean to employ force and violence, they did in fact do so. That is what the trial was all about. Despite the advocacies of Formosa magazine, despite the many offices opened to support the conspiracy and despite the meetings and rallies held over a period of several months, no arrests were made and no charges were lodged until the defendants had attacked the police and the government at Kaohsiung the night of December 10.
Judgments are yet to come in the civil trial of lesser Kaohsiung defendants. However, we are all aware that the case is nearly finished. The seriously guilty will be punished. Only the activists among the Kaohsiung rioters were arrested and brought to trial. Those who merely marched along and did nothing — maybe 150 of them — got off scot free.
To argue — as some foreigners do — that the government should have ignored the whole conspiracy reflects a misunderstanding of the seriousness of the "Taiwan independence movement." Not many people at home are interested in "independence." This was reflected in the total lack of popular support for the Kaohsiung rioters. But the movement is increasingly active in Japan and the United States, and the Communists are trying hard to manipulate its various factions.
The Republic of China has to face the Communists' united front conspiracy as well as the misguided "independence movement" advocates — some of whom are quite willing to become Communist pawns. We cannot risk allowing seditionists to run rampant. This has nothing to do with freedom, democracy and human rights. Even the United States, which considers itself to be the freest country in the world, draws the line at sedition.
Plans have already been made to go ahead with general elections that were postponed because of the U.S. recognition of the Chinese Communists and severance of relations with the Republic of China. The Kuomintang opposition will be heard from anew. The round-up of seditionists had nothing to do with legitimate politicians who think they can govern better than the majority ruling party.
By the time of the elections expected later this year, the Republic of China should be able to put the Kaohsiung incident behind it and go forward in unity to support the nation, the Constitution and a government that may be changed only by peaceful, democratic and constitutional means.
The Republic of China has taken a heavier buffeting than any other member of the free world community. We have been kicked around by our friends but have not struck back. We have clung to free and democratic values when it would have been much easier to impose authoritarian rule. The Kaohsiung incident was one more test in a long series. We passed it and survived with free institutions intact. With all due credit to the patience of the government, the biggest tribute must be reserved for a people who refused to panic or accept the views of extremists.