On Dec. 5, the Supreme Court handed down a guilty verdict in the long-running court case against former minister of transportation and communications Kuo Yao-chi (郭瑤琪), who served in 2006 under then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Kuo has a master’s degree in urban planning from the University of London.
In 2008, in the early years of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, she and many other former DPP officials were accused of corruption and charged.
In some cases, such as that of former president Chen, this led to conviction and imprisonment.
However, the trial and treatment of the former president had clear political overtones. In contrast, many other trials led to acquittal.
In Kuo’s case, legal proceedings dragged on for years. In her first and second trials in 2009 and 2010, before the Taipei District Court and by the Taiwan High Court respectively, she was declared not guilty.
Prosecutors continued to appeal, and in two retrials before the Taiwan High Court, in 2011 and in a second this year, she was found guilty.
The case against her, however, was based on the testimony of a single witness, Lee Tsung-hsien (李宗賢), son of Lee Ching-po (李清波), who is the chairman of Nan Ren Hu Group, a large industrial conglomerate with close connections to the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Lee Tsung-hsien had initially testified on behalf of his father that he had delivered the equivalent of US$20,000 in cash packed in two iron tea boxes to the then-minister.
However, he later revoked his testimony, and during a raid on the former minister’s home, prosecutors did not find any tea boxes or cash.
The accusation against former minister Kuo that she took money from the Nan Ren Hu chairman is highly peculiar, as Nan Ren Hu did not bid for government procurement during that period.
The conclusion by the High Court and Supreme Court that there was a quid pro quo relationship is even more astounding.
The political bias of the courts is evident, as Kuo has now been convicted of accepting an amount equivalent to US$20,000, while in the case of the former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世), the courts mysteriously dropped the corruption charges despite prosecutors having seized large amounts of cash from Lin’s home.
Lin had been charged with bribery in the amount of at least US$2.1 million, which is more than 100 times the amount that Kuo allegedly accepted.
The Formosan Association for Public Affairs is convinced that this is yet another case of judicial system abuse by the Ma administration: Going after members of the previous DPP administration of former president Chen while whitewashing serious crimes within its own ranks.
We have documented about 48 cases against former and current DPP officials that can be considered political persecution.
As Taiwanese-Americans, we appeal to the government and Congress of the US to express their concern about this erosion of justice and lack of fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system.
Taiwan can only be a strong democracy if its judicial institutions adhere to the basic principles of fairness and due process of law.
Mark Kao is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese-American grassroots organization based in Washington.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS