HIGH COURT DISMISSES MARCH 20 ELECTION CASE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 003494 SIPDIS STATE PASS AIT/W E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/10/2013 TAGS: PGOV TW SUBJECT: HIGH COURT DISMISSES MARCH 20 ELECTION CASE Classified By: AIT Deputy Director David J. Keegan, Reason: 1.4 (B/D) ¶1. (C) Summary: The Taiwan High Court rejected a case filed by opposition leaders Lien Chan and James Soong to overturn the March 20 election. The court announced that the opposition failed to support its claims that President Chen Shui-bian won the election through illegal means. Opposition lawyers immediately announced their intention to appeal the ruling and expressed confidence that a separate case challenging the conduct of the election would result in a more favorable verdict. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials urged Lien to follow the example set by Senator John Kerry and gracefully accept defeat. Instead, KMT Chairman Lien Chan declared that the court's ruling marked the "darkest day in the history of Taiwan's judiciary." On the eve of the verdict, Lien offered the inflammatory suggestion to the KMT's Central Standing Committee (CSC) that Chen be subject to assassination as an illegitimate leader. The November 4 decision did not come as a surprise to either camp. However, observers on both sides believe the Pan-Blue's apparent rejection of the legal process may alienate moderate voters in the December 11 election. End Summary. Verdict In: Lien is a Loser -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The Taiwan High Court on November 4 rejected a civil suit brought by the Lien-Soong campaign over the results of the March 20 presidential election. The Pan-Blue alleged that Chen's victory was illegitimate because of voting irregularities and the alleged concoction of the March 19 shooting of Chen and Vice President Annette Lu. A High Court spokesman held a press conference after the announcement to explain the court's rulings on each part of the Pan-Blue's case. The spokesman noted that the court's full recount of the March 20 ballots changed the election results by only 4,000 votes (reducing Chen's margin of victory from 29,518 votes to 25,563 votes). The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations that the March 19 shooting incident was staged, that the decision to hold the referendum on the same day as the election skewed the results, or that military and police personnel were deprived of their right to vote due to the shooting incident. As the losers in the case, the Pan-Blue was ordered to pay nearly NTD 17 million (USD500,000) in court fees. Lawyers representing the Pan-Blue leaders announced plans to appeal the decision immediately after the verdict was announced. ¶3. (C) KMT Chairman Lien rejected the court's verdict, declaring November 4 the "darkest day in the history of Taiwan's judiciary." Lien asserted that it was not the Pan-Blue's responsibility to provide proof to back its allegations, but rather the court's duty to thoroughly investigate them. In the days leading up to the court decision, the Pan-Blue camp placed ads in major papers denouncing the legal process and accusing the DPP government of manipulating the courts. At a November 3 KMT CSC meeting with open press, Lien sparked controversy by using an ancient Chinese phrase ("renren zhizhu") to suggest that the president should be assassinated if the court ruled in Chen's favor. A proposal by Lien that the KMT mobilize supporters to surround the courthouse before the verdict was announced was reportedly rejected by party vice chairmen Wang Jin-pyng and Ma Ying-jeou. Nevertheless, several hundred Pan-Blue supporters along with a handful of Pan-Blue Legislative Yuan (LY) candidates gathered in front of the court to protest the verdict. Some protesters threw eggs at riot police. ¶4. (C) Despite their combative public stance, Pan-Blue officials privately say they did not expect the court to find in its favor. People First Party (PFP) Deputy Policy Chief Lee Yun-jie told AIT on the eve of the court decision that there was zero expectation the case would go for Lien and Soong. "This isn't a matter of political interference in the judiciary," he stated, "it is simply that no judge in Taiwan would consider overturning a major election, even if there was clear proof of fraud." KMT Policy Chief Tseng Yung-chuan, a Lien loyalist, told AIT weeks before the verdict that the Pan-Blue camp had largely written off the challenge to the election results, but still held out hope that a separate court case filed against the Central Election Commission (CEC) over the voting process might produce a more positive result. DPP Response: The Kerry Model -------------- ¶5. (C) Presidential Office Secretary General Su Tseng-chang publicly urged Lien and Soong to look to Senator John Kerry's statesman-like concession speech on November 3 as a model for resolving the divisions that have existed within Taiwan since the March 20 election. Presidential Office Secretary Liu Shih-chung told AIT that the DPP would use Kerry's concession speech as a core theme in its campaign for the December 11 LY election. "The timing of Kerry's graceful concession speech juxtaposed with Lien's threat against the president could not have been better from our perspective," Liu remarked. Pan-Blue Reaction: Strike Two -------------- ¶6. (C) The court decision was not unexpected, but Lien Chan's statements in the lead-up to the ruling have handed the DPP yet another free PR victory. For weeks, Pan-Blue moderates have expressed fears that an emotional, provocative reaction by Lien or Soong to the court ruling would further alienate centrist voters in December. What is more troubling than Lien's outburst is silence on the part of the two contenders for future KMT leadership, Ma Ying-jeou and Wang Jin-pyng. The KMT's immediate response after the verdict was announced was less provocative than its earlier public statements, but Lien's November 3 apparent threat against the president has already set back the KMT's efforts to portray itself as a responsible, moderate voice of opposition. PAAL