President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has often spoken of his respect for the judiciary, pledged to never interfere in individual cases and lectured government officials on acting in accordance with the law. However, the recent brouhaha over former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) sudden transfer from Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) in Taipei to a prison hospital in Greater Taichung suggests otherwise.
Chen, serving a 20-year jail sentence for corruption, has been diagnosed with severe depression, sleep apnea, non-typical Parkinson’s disease, speech disorder and mild cerebral atrophy. Yet, despite a professional evaluation by Chou Yuan-hua (周元華), Chen’s attending physician at TVGH, who said the former president should be allowed to convalesce at home or at a hospital closer to home where he can benefit from family support, the Ministry of Justice early on Friday morning abruptly moved Chen to Taichung Prison’s Pei Teh Hospital without notifying Chen’s family.
Granted, the matter is within the ministry’s mandate, but can judicial authorities truly say they had acted in accordance with the law as Ma has often instructed them to do so?
When it comes to providing medical treatment to prisoners, the Prison Act (監獄行刑法) states that the ministry has the option of applying medical treatment in prison, transferring the patient to a prison hospital or receiving treatment outside prison and granting medical parole — all of which are aimed at the speedy recovery of the patient.
Taking into account that the first clause in Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) states that the conduct and methods adopted by a government agency, in a bid to guarantee people’s rights and enhance administrative efficiency, as well as public trust in the government, “should be helpful in achieving the purpose,” one has to wonder whether relocating Chen to a prison hospital is the best way to achieve the purpose of treating Chen.
After all, TVGH clearly suggested in its report that convalescence at home or at a hospital closer to home that allows Chen to benefit from family support is better suited to treating Chen’s ailments. However, by sending Chen to a prison hospital, judicial authorities have not only blatantly disregarded the hospital’s professional assessment, but may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫), in response to condemnation by angry pan-green lawmakers over Chen’s sudden transfer, reminded the public that “Chen is not only a patient, but also an inmate.”
Indeed, “do the crime, do the time” and Chen, convicted of corruption, should serve time in accordance with the law.
However, Chen’s right to medical care should not be neglected just because he is a prisoner. As the first clause of Article 10 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
Quick to come to the ministry’s defense, Ma said that Chen has already been accorded special treatment, as he will have access to an 800m2 special convalescence area and be allowed unlimited visits by family members.
That may be true, but the issue is not how much space Chen is given to walk around, rather, it is the professional medical care and environment that can best help him recover.
As Chen’s physical and mental state continues to deteriorate, prompting concern among human rights activists, one can only hope that the Ma government realizes that the sanctity of life — including that of a prisoner — is no laughing matter.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS