Court rulings were announced on June 21 in two high-profile cases relating to women's rights. The remarkable coincidence is that they both resulted in dramatic reversals of prior convictions, yielding acquittals and causing an uproar in society. Upon hearing the two judges explain the logic behind their verdicts to the media, I feel strongly that there are a number of points worth discussing.
In the case involving Tang Hsiu-pin (
In September 1999, the district court had found Chien guilty of attempted murder for lying to his then wife, Tang, about the fact that she had breast cancer. Tang believes that Chien had wanted her dead so that he could marry his lover.
The High Court gave two reasons for the verdict.
First, although husband and wife each have a duty to support each other in a marriage, that doesn't include matters such as preserving life and health.
Furthermore, although Chien is a doctor, he and his wife didn't have a doctor-patient relationship because he didn't practice medicine at home.
Apart from lamenting that "the power of law and the power to interpret it is limitless," we naturally can also very easily give completely different interpretations of the case from different angles.
One charge that Tang brought against her former husband was that he caused her to postpone seeking medical treatment, with disastrous consequences. In the case of breast cancer, this charge is completely reasonable. Breast cancer is not necessarily a life-threatening disease. Otherwise, why would we constantly encourage women to inspect their breasts regularly in order to promote early discovery and early treatment?
The High Court's conclusion virtually implies that a woman who develops breast cancer will definitely die, and whether she gets medical attention earlier or later makes absolutely no difference. So it was Tang's problem pure and simple, and her husband's intentionally covering up the truth and preventing her from seeking treatment in a timely manner had no influence on the condition of her illness.
The argument that Chien didn't have a doctor-patient relationship with Tang because he didn't practice medicine at home is even less persuasive. May we be so bold as to ask whether Chien's expertise disappeared because he left the hospital and returned home? When his wife questioned him about her symptoms, wouldn't the opinion he gave be seen by her as an expert medical opinion?
The moral of this precedent is that those in society with doctor friends should be especially careful that they never casually ask these friends for any sort of advice, unless they are in a hospital environment or they formally make an appointment, because doctors "lose their powers" as soon as they leave the hospital.
In their rush to exonerate the defendant, the judges completely failed to consider whether, in comparison with typical doctor-patient relationships, a special relationship of trust exists between husband and wife. That is to say, in a typical doctor-patient relationship, the patient need have only the slightest misgivings, and it is relatively easy to consult another doctor to seek a second opinion.
But the special relationship of trust between husband and wife might actually hinder the sick party from seeking an outside opinion, not to mention that the doctor might make threats with an ulterior motive by asking, "Do you trust my judgement or not?"
In fact, many doctors will actively arrange for their family members to be seen by a colleague because they fear personal feelings could influence their own diagnoses.
Contrasting Chien's behavior with this kind of compassionate and principled approach, I'm afraid that the presiding judge is probably the only person who believes Chien isn't guilty of intentionally causing harm and acting with intent.
The same point can also be made in the case of clergyman Tang Tai-sheng (唐台生).
The district court had found Tang, a Christian clergyman, guilty of sexually assaulting his teenage followers during gatherings for communion. Tang claimed he was providing "sex education" to the girls.
The Taiwan High Court stated that there was insufficient reason to indicate the defendant had used force or coercion -- or any other means that would render one "unable to resist" -- to sexually assault his followers.
In response to this, we must request that the judges offer a more in-depth explanation of what they called "force or coercion," as well as explore what is meant by "unable to resist."
Are we to believe that the judges weren't aware that last year several crimes of "violating morality" in the Criminal Code were amended to"obstruction of sexual freedom," and that these changes went into effect at the beginning of this year?
Does this mean that victims have to be either covered with bruises or at their last gasp before they can prove the use of "force or coercion" -- or that they resisted as much as they possibly could?
Similarly, does there exist a special relationship of trust between clergy and their followers that causes people, when they are either in places of worship or in the presence of clergy, to be less cautious than usual? And does this special relationship of trust also give those clergy with criminal intent even more chance to act upon that intent?
It is exactly because of this that women's groups in recent years have been particularly severe in their criticism of cases of sexual assault and harassment resulting from abuses of professional authority. Their voices, however, clearly haven't reached the ears of certain high-court judges.
During these past several years, through the sacrifice and efforts of numerous people, issues relating to women's rights have gradually gained recognition. These latest rulings are not only a huge setback for the judiciary, but also serve to mock and frustrate the cause of guaranteeing women's rights.
Surprisingly, after going through such an extremely arduous process, Tang Hsiu-pin has shown much generosity and tolerance. Perhaps what makes us respect and feel for her the most is that she acts as a perfect role model -- showing us that it is possible to "break up, yet stay on good terms."
Su Chien-ling is chairwoman of the Awakening Foundation.
Translated by Ethan Harkness and 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
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