Judiciary fails Hsichih Trio
The news that the Taiwan High Court scaled down the level of compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment offered to the Hsichih Trio by disingenuously arguing that the three were not tortured by police and were in part responsible for their own detention comes as no surprise to those following the case and serves as an example of the crisis of legitimacy at the heart of Taiwan’s judicial system (“Court offers NT$15m to compensate Hsichih Trio,” April 11, page 3).
In a constitutional republic, the concept of “rule of law” — that no one is above the law — is the central tenet that supports the authority of the police, prosecutorial and penal system. This principle is violated when people are unfairly victimized by the legal system.
In the case of the Hsichih Trio, judges and prosecutors (one of whom is now in detention on corruption charges) have shown themselves incapable of respecting the final ruling made in September last year declaring the men innocent.
First, they suggested that the men should donate their compensation to charity — insinuating that the three do not deserve it — and now they have twisted the truth and blamed the defendants in an attempt to scale down the level of compensation that could be awarded.
Judges and prosecutors in this case are more concerned about their loss of face and public pressure than about carrying out their duties fairly in accordance with the law.
Judicial incompetence led to three men being wrongly incarcerated for 12 years. During that time the victims’ relatives and the media were repeatedly told that the three were murderers.
Proven wrong, judges and prosecutors are too embarrassed to face the facts and apologize. Instead, they continue to imply that the men are guilty even though they are unable to prove it. This is a form of legalistic character assassination and a revenge politics.
There are numerous other cases in which a politicized judiciary has misled the public and undermined faith in the impartiality of the judicial process.
In the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Special Investigation Panel convened a press conference to say that it was determined to find him guilty and punish him — before Chen had been charged with any crime. This was highly irregular, possibly illegal and crudely designed to influence public opinion. Chen was tried and convicted by the media before the courts examined and dismissed most of the charges levied against him.
Similarly, we have seen the tactic of using the judiciary to exact revenge in the cases of opposition politicians falsely accused of corruption, many of whom were placed in “preventative detention,” standing in contrast to high-level Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials charged with corruption, who were quickly released on bail.
How many more will fall victim to the nation’s politicized and partial judicial system before some semblance of professionalism and independence is achieved?
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the