At a court hearing, rationality must be applied to the analysis of evidence and parties should refrain from irrational arguments.
The confusion surrounding the special "state affairs" fund is finally being reviewed in a court of law.
This case, however, has deep political implications.
Furthermore, it is legally complex and it is therefore difficult to see how a verdict will be reached smoothly.
First lady Wu Shu-jen (
Regardless, we are eagerly looking forward to a fair and just court review that will resolve any crisis and clarify all the confusing issues.
As this case is getting a lot of attention domestically and abroad, and because such a case has never been heard before, all three parties -- prosecutors, defense lawyers and the presiding judge -- seemed quite tense on the first day.
The court hearing saw intense exchanges between the parties.
Based on media reports, it seems the parties involved will all have to put an effort into cooling down and staying rational.
The lawyers for the four accused repeatedly said that the accusations were unconstitutional and violated legal procedures. They argued fiercely with both prosecutors and the judge.
One lawyer demanded that the judge remain just and fair and not be influenced by accusations made or reported by the media.
The judge reportedly retorted by asking whether the lawyer wanted him to take an oath or sign a written guarantee.
Emotions seemed to run high, and the judge surely felt insulted.
The lawyers also claimed that much evidence had not been reviewed. They requested that the judge temporarily suspend proceedings, but to no avail.
After the prosecutor finished reading the accusations, the presiding judge asked the accused if they were guilty, but their lawyers felt that the judge should not ask them about their guilt prior to questioning.
The prosecutor even wanted the lawyers to close their eyes and think about their ideals when they first started studying law.
The opening drama illustrated how the complications and emotions in this case far exceeded expectations.
The first issue at hand was whether the court hearing would be able to continue.
From a jurisprudential perspective, the president has immunity against criminal charges, but he has been implicated in the allegations in this trial.
The question is whether the trial against Wu violates the president's immunity.
The prosecutor and the judge must of course respond to the defense lawyers' claim that the review must be suspended since the proceedings are in violation of the Constitution.
The fact that the presiding judge and the prosecutor take the same stand on this issue also seems to be another source of conflict.
The presiding judge in particular must consider whether there will be any doubt about the verdict being constitutional.
Second, when it was decided that Wu would be prosecuted, the allegations regarding Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
Before the hearings began, however, it was discovered that false receipts and other irregularities had occurred in the reporting of Ma's fund expenditures.
The situation at the beginning of this review was very different from the situation at the time when the lawsuit was filed.
If this is a matter of karma, then the verdict in the special "state affairs" fund case will have a clear impact on the decision of whether or not the irregularities in the special allowance fund case should lead to prosecution and maybe even a guilty verdict.
The court faces another difficulty.
The case is highly politicized, and one could say it is closely intertwined with the ongoing political conflict, which means that it will be very difficult to depoliticize the review process and the verdict.
At the very least, the verdict will be unsatisfactory to one of the two political camps, and this poses a great challenge for the judiciary.
Judging from the first lady's poor condition at the initial court hearing, the court must improve.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (
It might have been an exaggeration to call the judge "inhumane," but media reports said: "When the doctors said Wu's systolic blood pressure had fallen to 50, the judge asked if she could return to the courtroom for further questioning within one or two hours if sent to the hospital. However, doctors said that she was not doing well, so they asked for her to be excused."
The judge seemed to be a bit too eager and showed a lack of understanding.
Wu's doctor said that her blood circulation was poor because of her paralysis from the waist down, and sitting still so long during the hearing had lowered her blood pressure even more.
This is a major lawsuit and the proceedings and verdict will have far-reaching consequences.
That means that the hearings must progress carefully without rushing things. This is not only necessary to reach a fair verdict, but also in taking Wu's health into consideration.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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