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.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,
RSS