It is hard to know which scenario is more outrageous: That President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration nominated Supreme Court Judge Shao Yen-ling (邵燕玲) for a seat on the Council of Grand Justices despite her role in one of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings in recent years or that it was apparently ignorant of the controversy. Either way, it appears that someone on the Harvard Law School-educated president’s team failed to perform proper due diligence.
Even though Shao declined the nomination and Ma quickly named a replacement, this issue goes to the heart of the selection process for a position on the bench of the nation’s top court. It also raises questions, once again, about Ma’s administrative abilities and attention to detail, or lack thereof.
Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), who led the task force that came up with candidates for the four grand justice seats that will be vacant in the fall, said his group spent 18 days drawing up a list of 32 potential candidates and short-listed nine of them for Ma, who then picked the final four. Both Ma and Siew have apologized for Shao’s nomination, although the president said on his Facebook page that he did not learn about the controversy surrounding Shao until Thursday morning.
Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) hedged when pressed about how Shao’s name made it onto the shortlist and whether Ma had been aware of her ruling that aroused such outrage. It’s hard to believe the denials given the Presidential Office statement issued on Sept. 25 last year, when thousands of people rallied in front of it on Ketagalan Boulevard in a protest organized by the “White Rose Movement” against incompetent judges. Ma had heard the movement’s call, the statement said, and would push for the swift passage of a draft bill to regulate the certification, performance and ethics of judges, as well as tougher penalties for child molesters.
That protest was in direct response to two cases — one before the Supreme Court and one before the Kaohsiung District Court — that found the attackers of two young girls (aged three and six) should be tried on the lesser charge of statutory rape (having sex with a person under the age of 14), instead of sexual assault, because prosecutors had failed to prove the assaults were against the children’s wishes since they had either not resisted (the three-year-old) or did not resist enough (the six-year-old). Shao led the Supreme Court panel that sent the case against the three-year-old’s attacker back to the Taiwan High Court.
So great was the outrage over those rulings that on Sept. 7 last year, the Supreme Court announced that sexual assaults on children under the age of seven would henceforth carry a minimum prison sentence of seven years, whether the assault was “believed to have been made against the victim’s will or not.”
In September Ma heard the protests against “dinosaur judges” and the pleas for judicial reform, but by last month he, along with Siew’s task force, had forgotten the names of the judges in the cases that sparked the protests? That strains credulity.
Lo said on Thursday that the Presidential Office would “pay more attention next time the president makes a nomination.” Great, but there is still the current nomination mess to sort out. Judges who have a record of rulings based solely on hewing to the letter of the law instead of interpreting the law would seem to be ill-suited to a job that requires them to interpret the Constitution.
Ma said that he hoped the legislature would ratify his four nominees before its summer recess so the new grand justices could be sworn in on Oct.1, as required by law. The lawmakers should certainly take their time and give the nominees a thorough vetting, since neither the task force nor the Presidential Office appears to have done so.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS