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.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS