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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS