Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) launched a hunger strike soon after she was detained by prosecutors over her alleged involvement in a corruption case connected to the construction of a landfill project. Her vehement protest has brought into focus problems involved in handling the cases of many former and incumbent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials who have recently been detained.
Su’s detention has prompted DPP supporters to question whether the prosecution is politically motivated. Yunlin District Chief Prosecutor Liu Chia-fang (劉家芳) rebutted such accusations: “The judiciary is not the dog of the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] nor is it a tiger raised by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP]. Anybody involved in corruption will be investigated.”
As these cases are under investigation, it is hard for outsiders to make a judgment now. It is true, however, that prosecutors violated procedure when they took Su in for questioning and then applied to have her remanded into custody the same day. The Yunlin District Court offered to release her on NT$6 million (US$183,000) bail, but she spurned the offer. This abnormal judicial procedure has fueled public dissatisfaction.
In a country where the rule of law prevails, prosecutors must summon an accused for questioning and obtain conclusive evidence before bringing a case to court. Pre-trial detention should be avoided because it amounts to punishment without conviction, which is contrary to the Constitution. Detention prior to a trial should be restricted to extreme circumstances.
For many years, regardless of which party was in power, prosecutors have resorted to pre-trial detention in cases where the accused has not cooperated with the investigation. Although the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) states that the accused has the right to remain silent, silence is generally interpreted by prosecutors as a sign of guilt. This attitude violates the fundamental principles of criminal procedure.
Yunlin County prosecutors claim that the case against Su is based on firm evidence and that they can quickly proceed to a prosecution. If sufficient evidence has already been gathered, however, why would prosecutors worry that Su might collude to conceal evidence, and why would they need to apply to remand her into custody on these grounds? Concern that collusion may take place is a common rationale in applications for detention, but it is also the weakest grounds for remanding someone into custody.
The fact is that there is a whole string of recent legal cases involving serving government officials who are members of the DPP. As the legal process casts a shadow into the realm of politics, it is hardly surprising when judicial institutions become a target for counteraccusations. Suspicions of judicial bias have prompted a number of academics, journalists and others in the US to sign an open letter expressing their worries about the state of Taiwan’s democracy.
The detentions have created widespread unease within the DPP. Angry party supporters are accusing the authorities of political victimization. Their sense of injustice was an important factor in fomenting the bloody clashes that occurred during last week’s visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).
Prosecutor Eric Chen (陳瑞仁) of the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office recently said the procuratorial system should avoid clustering the accused into particular groups. His statement could be seen as an admission of political interference in certain cases. When investigating political figures, judicial institutions must stick strictly to the evidence and ensure that prosecution and trials are conducted free of any interference. If they take a wrong step in such cases, they risk being seen as political tools and becoming embroiled in political confrontation.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS