On the morning of June 27, former minister of justice Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) appeared at Chinan Church in Taipei City for a press conference organized by the Humanistic Education Foundation, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights and the Judicial Reform Foundation in support of the Hsichih Trio -- the accused murderers who have been maltreated by the judicial system for 16 years now. During the press conference Ma voiced his support for the three men, Su Chien-ho (蘇建和), Liu Bing-lang (劉秉郎) and Chuang Lin-hsun (莊林勳). Two days later, the three were sentenced to death by the High Court, mainly based on induced confessions and dubious forensic evidence.
Media reports have recently said that the transcript of a witness deposition in Ma's trial is suspected of being different from the recording. Ma's lawyer requested that the recording be compared with the written statement, and accused public prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen (
The Hsichih Trio's lawyer had similar complaints about his clients' case.
He said that when Su was first interviewed by prosecutor Tsui Chih-chen (
This was the treatment the Hsichih Trio received 16 years ago and, if the accusations are true, Ma has been treated no less shabbily. How Ma's lawyers deal with the investigative flaws uncovered during the trial is not important. What matters is whether people should be looking at the human rights questions raised during investigations. If everyone, from humble residents in Hsichih to former ministers of justice, are dealt with in this way, would anybody be lucky enough to escape such treatment? Do we want this kind of "fairness"?
To eliminate forced confessions, Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code (刑事訴訟法) was amended after the famous case of Wang Ying-hsien (王迎先), who was tortured by police to confess to robbing a bank in 1982. This amendment allowed defendants to have a lawyer present during questioning in criminal cases.
After the legal world reflected on the problems of improper interrogation techniques revealed by the Hsichih Trio case, the code was amended again in 1997 to require that the entire process of questioning defendants be recorded and filmed. Still, this amendment appears to have failed to completely eliminate illegal interrogation.
It's time to take another look at judicial reform. The prosecutorial system wields great power, yet scandals still occur. Not only should we begin to consider reining in that power, we should also propose making it mandatory for lawyers to be present when prosecutors question suspects. Failing that, prosecutors who violate defendant's rights should be jailed.
If we continue to permit these rights violations, one day it could be you or me who is the victim. After all, the law is "fair" in this way. Meanwhile, we must also call on the courts to thoroughly investigate these accusations so that the innocent are exonerated and the guilty are caught. If prosecutors have been falsely accused, of course they should be cleared. But if the accusations are true, then they owe society an explanation.
Lin Feng-jeng is a lawyer and executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Marc Langer
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under