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.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS