As the amendment to the Code of Court Martial Procedure (軍事審判法) is being implemented and the handling of military offenses is being transferred to the civil judicial system, US military courts are trying or have tried two major cases.
The first case was the trial of US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, who gave the largest set of documents ever to be released to WikiLeaks.
The second case is the trial of Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair, who faces charges that include forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and adultery, which is a crime under US military law.
Neither the private nor the brigadier general has questioned the independence, fairness and transparency of the US military judicial system. They seem to feel that the system does not violate their human rights, and they have not asked to be tried under the civil judicial system.
The US military judicial system is independent, fair and transparent, and it protects every defendant’s rights. This means that both the civil and military judicial systems are respected. Nobody questions the coexistence of the two systems.
As for Taiwan, the transfer of military judicial cases to the civil judicial system is in line with public expectations. Since high-ranking officers can interfere with the military judicial system, there is a risk that they might protect one another. In addition, the quality of military prosecutors is lower than that of civilian prosecutors, and this might also affect the quality of an investigation or a trial. The transfer of the military cases to the civil judicial system in peacetime must therefore be seen as a step forward.
Still, it was a rash decision, a political expedient that failed to address the core of the problem: the independence and fairness of the military and civil judicial systems, as well as of prosecutors and investigators.
Although traditional “rule of man” and the Leninist party-state system tried to emulate advanced countries, these systems were still haunted by political intervention. Back in 1979, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) extreme right and intelligence agencies stirred things up and caused the Kaohsiung Incident, setting up dangwai (黨外) — “outside the party” — democracy activists for treason charges and then trying them in the military judicial system. Cases like the wrongful execution of air force serviceman Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) made the military judicial system notorious.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to have revived the “party-state” system. To eliminate pro-localization political leaders, his government has brought charges against officials in the previous, Democratic Progressive Party administration under the guise of cracking down on corruption. It has also intervened in trials, with complete disregard of due legal process. The civil judicial system lacks independence and fairness in the same way that the military system does.
The death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) further highlighted the abuse of power and the discretionary rule mentality that exists in the military, but similar problems also exist in the civil judicial system. By transferring all the military cases to the civil court system, we are simply transferring all the problems of a “branch store” to the “head office,” while the fundamental problem of a lack of judicial independence, beyond the reach of Ma and the KMT, remains unresolved.
The pursuit of a better legal system requires a lot more hard work by the “white shirt” movement and judicial officers of the same generation.
James Wang is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with