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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS