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.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS