In such a politically charged environment as Taiwan's, I often wonder if law professors teaching criminal process are the only ones who care about the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and "closed-door investigation," and whether school tests or bar exams are the only places where these doctrines really matter.
Many recent cases indicate that prior to legal proceedings, certain media outlets had already "convicted" certain people. The proof used to back up their accusations is usually unexamined evidence and testimony. It seems one-sided views can be treated as the truth without being cross-examined by the opposing party or investigated by a judge, as long as they can be used to deal a blow to one's political opponents.
Similarly, any theory against the defendant developed by the prosecutor is taken as a guilty verdict without a trial, as long as the result can be used against one's opponents. If a court's verdict is not in line with one's own political interests, it only proves that political forces from the other side have interfered with judicial proceedings. When that happens, the media does not hesitate to claim that the judiciary has degenerated with the political system.
The nation's media constantly call for judicial independence, while contradicting themselves by demanding a particular result from the judiciary to satisfy the public.
If media outlets really do respect the judiciary and care about judicial independence, they should give law-enforcement agencies more room for unbiased investigations. In a post-authoritarian society such as Taiwan where the media has been able to bloom, it is important to realize that the judiciary should be independent of pressure not only from the government, but also from public opinion created or encouraged by the mass media. Judicial officials should not pander to the media, nor should they fear its criticism or let it influence them.
In addition to resisting external interference, judicial officials should put aside their own political beliefs. If they forget that they represent social justice and let their political inclinations influence their handling of cases, it will harm both the judiciary and society, because its moderating force will degenerate as a result of endless internal strife.
Unfortunately, some judicial officials have forgotten their responsibilities because of the incitement by the media. They have happily become heroes in the media while ignoring that they are just another set of cheap, replaceable political thugs.
Due to Taiwan's history of martial law, it has been very difficult to restore public confidence in the judiciary, but it is quite easy to destroy judicial credentials. If we genuinely want the judiciary to be a moderating force for this country, other social forces such as politicians and the media should stop openly and directly interfering with it. They should let all evidence be scrutinized in court, instead of allowing "deep throats" or legislators hiding behind their immunity to make irresponsible accusations.
Supervision of the judiciary should be conducted only after a verdict has been reached. Then everyone can carefully examine all procedural decisions and verdicts.
To ensure that our judicial system is independent, judicial officials must hold on to their principles. But even that will not be enough. Society as a whole must establish measures to create an environment where an independent judiciary is possible.
Lee Chia-wen is an assistant professor of law in the Department of Law and the Institute of Law in Science and Technology at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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