On Friday, former New Party lawmaker Elmer Feng (
The verdict handed down by the Shihlin District Court has been welcomed as belated justice by the Taiwan International Workers Association (TIWA) which had helped the rape victim report the crime committed against her. In response, Feng held a press conference claiming not only his innocence but also that the verdict is the result of "political persecution."
Feng alleges that the strongest piece of evidence proving his innocence is a signed statement and supposed video confession of the victim both made in the presence of an attorney after she returned to Philippines. It supposedly overturns the statements that she gave earlier to the police in Taiwan, and she allegedly denies the rape ever took place.
While Feng may be able to fool some members of the public with this song and dance about the alleged confessions of his victim, anyone who is slightly familiar with the law knows that the legal inadmissibility of this kind of hearsay is due entirely to its lack of credibility and trustworthiness. Article 159 of the Criminal Litigation Code specifically excludes the admissibility of hearsay as evidence. The underlying logic is that statements given in court are more credible. The written statement and video confession of Feng's are classic examples of hearsay. The serious lack of credibility and trustworthiness of these two pieces of "evidence" explains precisely why hearsay is, as a matter of principal, excluded from a court of law.
First and foremost, Feng gave NT$800,000 (US$24,928) in settlement money to his victim before she abruptly left Taiwan. Then there is the hard-to-miss gap social status and power between Feng and the victim. Feng is not only a former legislator, but he is known for his active and enthusiastic participation in cross-strait affairs.
The victim -- as a foreign laborer -- belongs to the most marginalized group of Taiwan's foreign community. It is reasonable to believe that the victim felt intimidated by Feng's influence and social status and therefore was pressured into overturning her prior statement. As wisely pointed out by the court, the signed statement and video confession could not explain why the semen found in the victim matched Feng's DNA.
The only question then left was whether the hearsay falls within the five exceptions listed in Article 159. Unfortunately for Feng, since these exceptions deal mostly with statements given outside of court but during an investigation by individuals such as a judge, prosecutor, the police, or other members of the judicial and legal branches, they are inapplicable to the so-called "evidence" raised by Feng. On the other hand, the statements given by the victim to the police did qualify for admission. It is hard to believe that Feng's attorney would be incompetent to the point of not understanding the simple legal principles outlined above.
Under the circumstances, why does Feng continue to protest the inadmissibility of the "evidence" in question? Obviously most of the public may not understand the law too well. Crying political persecution may win Feng a measure of public support and bolster his chances of a political comeback.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry