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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers