The Ministry of Justice’s power games continue unabated.
Yesterday, this newspaper ran a story on a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow judges and prosecutors to punish defendants, lawyers, reporters, activists and any other people who publicize evidence or case details in a manner that upsets the court. Other behavior in or out of court that “disobeys the orders” of the court in the eyes of judges would also be dealt with severely.
The main problem with these changes is that they are impossibly vague, which is sure evidence that they are a kneejerk response from prosecutorial officials who suffered professional humiliation during the debacle-ridden trials of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
There is no question that reform of how the media deal with the courts is warranted. Unfortunately, the ministry and the drafter(s) of the proposed amendment are exploiting a system in flux and a souring institutional reputation to crack down on one side. The bias this reflects is distressing for anyone who hoped for a legal system that placed propriety before political meddling.
The ministry’s justification for this attempted change is impossibly superficial. It is not about the law and how it determines guilt or innocence, but about preventing the impression that the court “indulges madness.”
The result will be a chilling effect on the activities of lawyers as they set about defending their clients and on reporters and activists who attempt to expose judicial abuses and illegalities. The new court environment would resemble the bad old days of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, in which judges took their orders from above as necessary and issued orders below, and defendants had precious little advocacy and were routinely framed.
Only a decade after defense attorneys were granted the power to cross-examine witnesses, this proposed amendment stands as a political counterattack launched against reform in general, as well as against irritants who have exposed the lack of accountability of judges who break the law by denying suspects due process in court, and of prosecutors who habitually leak evidence to damage the standing of defendants.
We are led to believe, if this amendment is passed, that the material many prosecutors use to defame suspects through leaks to pliant media outlets cannot be held to account by legal teams defending their clients — at risk of prosecution by the same people who leaked the information.
Under Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), the ministry has ignored its responsibility to uphold the integrity of the judicial system as a whole and has blocked or stalled essential reforms. In this context, the proposed amendment is an unwitting indictment of the sleazy coalition of bureaucrats, prosecutors and judges who back it, and marks a possible new stage in the degradation of the nation’s judicial system.
If granted these new, vague powers, certain prosecutors and judges will crack down on aggressive defense teams for no other reason than to make their jobs easier and keep dissident opinion in its place. Inevitably, they will also seek to intimidate, silence and/or punish people who champion reform of this increasingly maladroit institution.
This pathetic minister must be thrown out. It appears, however, that the old-school forces she represents or tolerates are formidable and shaping for a fight.
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
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
“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