“The Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] owns the courts,” former Examination Yuan president Hsu Shui-teh (許水德) once said.
Though some may still have their doubts about the validity of this statement, many more were probably convinced of its veracity after the Taipei District Court on Tuesday acquitted former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) of bribery charges.
The court ruled that Lin’s lobbying of China Steel Corp officials did not constitute a breach of duty, and that he had therefore not violated the Anti-Corruption Act (貪汙治罪條例) by accepting NT$63 million (US$2.13 million) from Ti Yung Co owner Chen Chi-hsiang (陳啟祥) to help him secure a contract to buy slag from subsidiaries of state-owned China Steel. Instead, the court found Lin guilty of seeking to profit through intimidation through his capacity as a public official, and guilty of owning assets from dubious sources.
The court stripped Lin of his civil rights for five years and fined him NT$15.8 million.
Court rulings should be respected for their professionalism and fairness. However, Tuesday’s ruling fell far short of public expectations, because few people agree with the Taipei District Court that a government official accepting a bribe does not constitute corruption.
Then there are questions about the NT$63 million that Chen admitted giving to Lin. The court previously confiscated NT$33 million from Lin and now it has fined him NT$15.8 million. That would appear to leave Lin holding NT$14.2 million, and yet the court has still ruled he is not guilty of corruption.
Equally bizarre is that the court showed leniency toward Chen for admitting to investigators that he gave Lin a bribe of NT$63 million, and yet it found Lin not guilty of accepting the bribe.
No wonder the ruling left many people scratching their heads.
However, many have also been puzzled by the lack of comment on the ruling from the nation’s leaders.
Rewind to Nov. 5, 2010, when the same court, citing insufficient evidence, acquitted former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), of charges of money laundering and taking bribes from bankers in exchange for help manipulating bank mergers. Just two days later, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said the “judiciary, while it needs to be independent, cannot be isolated from the public, let alone be opposed to the public’s reasonable expectations.”
Less than a week later, Chen Shui-bian was found guilty of bribery in a final verdict in the Longtan land acquisition case.
Ma was quick to speak out when a verdict on Chen Shui-bian did not meet “the public’s reasonable expectations,” but he has not lectured the court for not heeding public opinion on Lin’s case.
If the same “standard” and reasoning used by the Taipei District Court in Lin’s case are to be upheld, then the corruption convictions against Chen Shui-bian and his wife should be overturned because they too were merely “seeking profit through intimidation.”
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division has yet to decide whether it will appeal the verdict in Lin’s case.
If it does and the Taiwan High Court upholds the district court’s ruling, then the nation’s judiciary will have lost any hope of ending the public’s ongoing disappointment and frustration with it.
The public will also know exactly who to blame.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new