It has been almost 40 years since I obtained my license to practice law. I have fought for democracy and human rights for half my life. The recent conduct of Taiwan’s prosecutors and courts has me deeply worried.
The purpose of the judiciary is to protect human rights and decide what is right and what is wrong, thus serving as the last line of defense for social justice. The process and outcome of a trial should not only convince the parties involved, but also be acceptable to society at large.
The Criminal Code (刑法) clearly details all penalties, while the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) and the Court Organic Act (法院組織法) comprehensively state how prosecutions and trials should proceed. A verdict may be rendered invalid by a tiny procedural flaw. This is called “procedural justice.” Even the worst criminals can only be declared guilty in accordance with strict legal procedures; otherwise, illegal punishment, revenge or trials with predetermined outcomes will prevail.
Take for example some recent controversial cases. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Tainan City Councilor Wang Ting-yu (王定宇) was — in just eight days — indicted for allegedly mobbing a Chinese official, with prosecutors recommending a relatively heavy 14-month jail sentence. In cases involving the alleged misuse of special allowances for government officials, both the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) reported hundreds of officials, but to this day, only five former ministers who are seen as being close to former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) have been indicted, and after five months, courts have yet to begin trial proceedings.
In one case, DPP Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) was originally released on bail but the decision was overruled after repeated appeals by prosecutors. In another, DPP Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) was detained without a summons, and was only released without bail after staging a hunger strike. Finally, former vice premier Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) was detained for 50 days but the court was in session only three times during that period. All these cases have led to serious questions about double standards in investigative and legal applications and show the KMT government’s disregard for human rights.
As for the alleged corruption cases involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) released Chen without bail, but the court decided to combine his cases with the ongoing investigation into Chen’s handling of his state affairs fund, a case presided over by Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓). This effectively transferred the power to decide whether to detain the former president to Tsai. Regardless of Tsai’s decision, the move has damaged the credibility of the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Taipei District Court.
Since the court originally granted the prosecutors’ request to detain Chen for two months — a period that can be extended once, thus giving prosecutors four months — they had ample time to look into the matter thoroughly. Instead the SIP rushed to indict Chen in less than a month and filed the cases in court. After the court released him without bail, prosecutors filed repeated appeals to have the release revoked. This haste reminds us of the joint press conference in mid-September when all eight SIP prosecutors pledged to resign if they failed to complete the investigation by the end of last year.
In terms of case assignment, there is a principle of “court-appointed judges” aimed at avoiding manipulation of judges or verdicts by the judicial authorities. However, the Taipei District Court has not adhered to this principle, leaving much room for speculation and once again damaging judicial credibility. For example, if the court believes that the corruption cases against Chen should be combined with the earlier state affairs fund case, why did it submit them as new and separate cases in the first place? And since Chou was put in charge of the new case by lot, why were they combined with the ongoing state affairs fund case only after Chou twice released Chen without bail? The timing of the decision to combine the cases would suggest that it was done just to change judges.
Moreover, the court did not follow the traditional method in combining cases that has been practiced for years, as it combined the four corruption cases with 14 defendants with the previous case with only four defendants.
Adding to our concern is the fact that Chou’s court is a specialized court set up especially for major financial crimes, and not a regular court.
These abnormal measures have destroyed the court’s credibility. This begs the question of how convincing a future verdict can be.
Su Tseng-chang is a former premier.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS