The Judicial Yuan released a draft bill for “fair and prompt” criminal trials (刑事妥速審判法) on Aug. 5, and has held six public hearings across Taiwan since Aug. 18. Most academics who attended the hearings seemed to believe the draft would not have an immediate and obvious effect on pending cases, and that it might lead to unpredictable risks.
Even so, the Judicial Yuan quickly passed a slightly amended version of the draft on Oct. 15 and immediately submitted it for legislative review. It also sent out press releases to promote the advantages of the draft, as if it were absolutely necessary to pass the draft before the end of the current legislative session.
On May 14, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which had been approved by the legislature. Article 14 of the former states that, “Everyone shall be entitled to be tried without undue delay.”
But the trials of Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順), Su Chien-ho (蘇建和) and Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強), which have been delayed now for 22, 19 and 16 years respectively, highlight the fact that the judicial system is incapable of handling such cases. This is a violation of the basic human rights afforded by the international covenants signed by Ma, not to mention that some victims of these miscarriages of justice have yet to receive compensation for wrongful imprisonment after 30 years.
The Judicial Yuan’s intention of treating pending cases according to international human rights standards as laid out by the international covenants is commendable, but the real question is how to do this.
Take Su of the “Hsichih Trio,” for example. If Su is found guilty this time, prosecutors can still appeal based on the draft. If the Taiwan High Court finds him not guilty for the third time in the retrial, then the prosecutors can no longer appeal, and the case will end. But if the court finds him guilty, the draft states that even if there are facts that still haven’t been clarified, an appeal is restricted to dealing with legal issues only, and will not deal with disputes over the facts. The Supreme Court can directly overrule an appeal, Su’s verdict will be final and he will have to face execution.
Is this the “justice” that we want? Since Taiwan’s judges often lack the determination and courage to adhere to the presumption of innocence, how many will find an accused not guilty even if evidence is weak?
The major cause of delays to cases is the inability to establish facts. Blocking a defendant who has been found guilty from filing an appeal based on arguments over facts does not solve the problem.
If the Judicial Yuan disagrees, perhaps it could investigate why cases delayed for more than six years — the cut-off point for special treatment stipulated in the draft — have been delayed so long, then announce the results to the public. It should also state how many cases involve a defendant who has been found not guilty by the Taiwan High Court three times or more.
On the surface, the draft seems fair because prosecutors will be unable to appeal a not-guilty verdict if a case has been delayed for six years or more and a defendant has had his or her verdict changed to not guilty three times.
However, it also deprives defendants of the right to appeal a guilty verdict. Is this an attempt to solve the problem or an attempt to bury unfortunate defendants who have been tortured by the judiciary over a long period of time?
Lin Feng-jeng is executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing