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.
“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