Astonishingly, the Taipei District Court again ruled to continue the detention of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). In doing so, the court flouted international human rights legislation as well as the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights have been signed into Taiwanese law.
The constitutional separation of powers requires the judicial, legislative and executive branches to supervise each other. After President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration took over, however, the judicial branch has not fulfilled this constitutional role.
Instead, it has listened to the government and given up its independence in joining the other branches to create an authoritarian system that impinges on impartiality and justice and encroaches on human rights.
Superficial evidence has made an appearance in Chen’s case, but pre-sentence detention is not a means to punish suspects, nor a tool to extract confessions.
The presumption of innocence means that the accused should be detained only after a guilty verdict has been issued and that judges must pay attention to admissible evidence. Judges cannot decide to detain a suspect indefinitely because they determine on their own accord that there are strong suspicions involving the accused or that he could try to abscond, then hand down a verdict based on a confession given under duress.
If, for example, Chen really was under strong suspicion of committing a crime, there would have been no need for the controversial switch of judges that resulted in Chen’s detention. Furthermore, if there are suspicions that an accused former president may abscond, this presumes that security officials will neglect their duties. This kind of presumed guilt is unreasonable and illegal.
If the reasons for the latest extension to Chen’s detention are not accepted by the general public, the judiciary will lose its credibility.
Corruption, graft and money-laundering are criminal acts around the world, and while the same is the case in Taiwan, previous judgments indicate that courts have not applied the law consistently in investigations of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government leaders. This has set a tacit precedent, and the unfairness of it all implies that there are two legal systems in place in Taiwan.
The Republic of China’s Constitution is a constitution for China, not for Taiwan, and the laws in the Constitution are Chinese laws, not Taiwanese laws. If we accept that Taiwan is lawless, then anything is acceptable.
The Nuremberg principle, the basis for international criminal law, states that the legality of domestic legislation does not absolve one of responsibility under international law, and that actions performed in the line of duty are not necessarily legal.
Human rights crimes fall under international legislation, so, in addition to expressing concern for Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, I call on the UN and the international community to show their concern for the problems of leaders of human rights movements elsewhere.
Huang Chi-yao has a doctorate in law and is a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS