Yesterday was the first day of what some would call the "retrial of the century." Five years after a third extraordinary appeal against their conviction and death sentence was rejected, the infamous Hsichih Trio -- Su Chien-ho
We hope that the retrial makes one fundamental point to Taiwan's law enforcement, prosecution and general public -- that the end never justifies the means when it comes to a criminal investigation, prosecution or trial. While crime fighting and punishment are of critical importance, abiding by legally-mandated procedures in every step of evidence gathering is no less important. Self-confessions compelled through duress, torture and any other illegal means violate not only the universally recognized human rights of defendants, but also judicial due process.
Going by the book may be less efficient and more time-consuming, and may even let some suspects who are certainly guilty off the the hook, but that is the price we, as a society, must pay. Between the wrongful conviction of the innocent and the wrongful acquittal of the guilty, the choice should always be, without any hesitation, the latter. Why? The devastation of a wrongful conviction is simply too tremendous.
It is time that Taiwan follow the path of other advanced countries in respect for human rights. In the US, the Supreme Court has repeatedly protected the sanctity of judicial due process. For example, it recognizes the so-called "fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine," under which all evidence gathered by illegal means, as well as all other evidence gathered based upon such evidence, is inadmissible.
We call on the High Court to have the wisdom to realize the significance of the retrial to Taiwan's judicial system and the courage to do what it must do to uphold justice, even if it means over-turning its own previous ruling. Its foreign counterparts have had to do that repeatedly, when justice called. For example, in the landmark case "Brown versus Board of Education," the US Supreme Court had the courage and the wisdom to overturn its previous ruling by holding that "racial segregation," or the doctrine of "separate but equal," as unconstitutional.
We must realize that, from a certain perspective, the Hsichih Trio can be considered "lucky" and "privileged." They are certainly not the only victims of police misconduct. While most if not all other such victims were never given the chance to see the light of the day, the trio have been given a "chance." Of course, without the enormous publicity generated by the case and the hard work of many domestic and international human right advocacy groups, such a "chance" would never have materialized.
Some have rightfully cautioned about the possible politicalization of the case and its potential impact of the retrial on judicial independence. After all, how many death row inmates get visits by the vice president and other high-ranking government officials? Of course, there is also the televising of the retrial -- another first. With the enormous public spectacle of the retrial, the judges face enormous public pressure, similar to that faced by the jury of the O.J. Simpson case. How to maintain the sanctity of judicial independence, while giving due process and human rights the respect they deserve will certainly test the wisdom and the courage of the judges.
The retrial will determine not simply the life and death of the Hsichih Trio, but also the life and death of judicial sanctity in Taiwan.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing