The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS