When Shou Chi-yang (施啟揚) was president of the Judicial Yuan, he used to complain that the media was filing too many negative reports about the judicial system which was doing harm to his colleagues. Every time Shou took a taxi to work, he would tell the driver to take him to the nearby Presidential Office or to Taipei First Girls' High School, not daring to ask to be driven to the Judicial Yuan.
Even though the media and judicial system both play the role of truth-seeker, are both symbols of democratization, and have a history of shared suffering under martial law. Because of significant differences in their organizational systems and professional scope, a kind of tension has always existed between them. Shou's complaint is indeed a fact.
In terms of organization, the judicial system has always been a closed institution, interacting as little as possible with the media. No matter how momentous the ruling, if journalists don't actively follow it up, justices won't stick out their necks to inform the public about their decisions. The judiciary's consistent reluctance to expose individual cases or individuals in press announcements also makes it difficult for society to know what kinds of "landmark" rulings have taken place in the judicial arena, and which justices or prosecutors are particularly deserving of kudos.
Throughout US judicial history, however, landmark verdicts have been widely reported in the media.
The US Supreme Court's "Sullivan" verdict in the 60's, and a decision concerning Vietnam War documents in the 70's, were both "landmark" rulings that exemplify the relationship between judicial decisions and press freedom. The names of the judges who decided the rulings also went down in the annals of history.
Before Sullivan, speech that did injury to another's reputation received no Constitutional protection under the First Amendment. With the Sullivan ruling, however, courts at every level had a new precedent upon which to base rulings.
In Taiwan, seldom has there been any rulings that indicated signifigant progress in the area of speech and press freedom. Last year, however, the history of the past half-century was changed. The "509 Interpretation" (509
Still, there was probably some luck involved in the not-guilty verdict received by Yazhou Zhoukan. At the local level, the first trial was presided over by Lee Hsiung-hsin (李維心), while the appeal in the high court was heard by Lee Shih-kueh (李世貴). The Judicial Reform Foundation gave the two judges a rating of 80, and 70-80 respectively -- good assessments from the legal profession. Had other judges handled the cases instead, it's impossible to say if the rulings would have been so "lucky."
Taiwan is a society that lacks landmarks and precedents. Still, in the short span of a year, several rulings have come out of the judicial system that have effectively rewritten history. Making progress towards adopting a standard for press freedom similar to that enjoyed by Western democratic countries has been a "Great Leap Forward" for Taiwan. It is also been a triple-jump for press freedom. The names of those grand justices and judges will one day be inscribed on a "landmark -- history won't forget them.
Wang Chien-chuang is President of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Scudder Smith
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath