Many media outlets were disappointed that they could not gain access to the court where former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) testified on the Zanadau investment case; there were not enough seats. This once again highlighted the issue of how much access the media should have to court hearings and whether the hearings should be broadcast live. The debate mainly centers on whether cameras in court would interfere with the court's operation. The judiciary and the media think differently about the issue and it is hard to draw a conclusion.
By all means, the Zanadau case is a judicial issue. Yet nobody would naively regard it as a purely judicial case. Politics should not interfere with the judicial system, but the judges themselves can hardly ignore politics.
When there is concern that a trial regarding a highly controversial political case may be manipulated by political forces, the court should do what it can to avoid being used and maintain its independent discretion. A fair judicial system, as demanded by the public, depends on every single case being handled openly and fairly.
Based on his duty to uncover the truth and realize justice, the judge who tried the Zanadau case summoned Lee to testify. His fairness in summoning all concerned, including a former president, is worthy of recognition.
An open trial with a limited audience is legal but not good enough. After all, few judicial cases receive so much attention from the media. It is not only about protecting press freedoms and the public's right to know but also a precious opportunity to educate the public about the rule of law. Unfortunately, our conservative judicial system has missed an opportunity.
If the court hearing that Lee attended had been broadcast live, the cross examination between the prosecutor and defendant would have been transmitted to every home and workplace. Such coverage would not only have satisfied the public's curiosity about the Zanadau case but would also have enhanced the visibility of the new legal practices based on amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such media education would be far more extensive and effective than any public announcements by the Judicial Yuan and would be good for building the public's confidence in the judicial system.
The mishandling of several major cases by the judiciary in the past has raised doubts among the public. As judicial reforms start to bear fruit, the judiciary cannot afford to fail in such a high-profile case as the Zanadau case. Maybe the system needs to be flexible at times. More open marketing is necessary to win the public's trust in the judicial system.
Lo Ping-cheng is a lawyer and an executive member of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past