Over the past few months, the Special Investigation Panel that has been investigating allegations of money laundering against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and members of his family has successfully applied to have a series of people taken into custody.
The rank of those detained has risen to include former deputy secretary-general of the Presidential Office Ma Yong-cheng (馬永成) and former National Security Council secretary-general Chiou I-jen (邱義仁), and now Chen himself is behind bars. Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) and Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) have also been detained on corruption charges.
The investigations have sometimes been closed and sometimes open, allowing the media to reveal a lot of information about them, while unproved rumors about the cases are circulating everywhere. As a result, more and more people are expressing doubts about the judicial process, and many have accused the prosecution of using pretrial detention as a means to pressure the accused into making confessions.
Times are changing. In the past, pretrial detention was a useful tool in the hands of the prosecution. In recent years, however, the trend in Taiwan has been for the Criminal Procedure Act (刑事訴訟法) to be interpreted in a way that prioritizes the protection of human rights. Are prosecutors clinging to the old way of doing things? There clearly exists a contradiction between the presumption of innocence on the one hand and the system of pretrial detention on the other. This is an issue that can no longer be evaded.
The Judicial Reform Foundation and other civic groups have proposed a list of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act that would serve to promote human rights. The point of the amendments is to confirm that the purpose of pretrial custody is not to help the prosecution expedite indictments.
It is proposed that the maximum time the accused may be detained for the purpose of investigation should be reduced from four months to 20 days, as in Japan. Such a reduction would give adequate protection to the rights of the accused while still providing reasonable time for criminal investigation. In the interest of reviving public confidence in the judicial system, the proposal deserves serious attention.
Lin Feng-cheng is president of the Judicial Reform Foundation and a lawyer.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS