One has to ask what it will take for the judicial system to get its act together — and how long the public must wait for that to happen.
Just over a month after the Control Yuan reprimanded the Ministry of Justice for negligence because two Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians convicted in high-profile corruption cases absconded before having to report to prison, another defendant has fled the nation after his final conviction.
The list of such fugitives over the past two decades is embarrassingly long, but despite purported efforts to improve the system, the list continues to grow.
The latest to go on the lam is Ching Tien-po (井天博), who not only worked as a prosecutor for 29 years, but even served as the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office spokesman. For a good portion of the decades he was paid to uphold the law, Ching had a profitable sideline peddling his influence in return for cash, stock and other gifts from those he was supposed to be prosecuting.
He fought his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, which last month issued a final ruling sentencing him to 11 years and six months in prison. Yet, despite the blatant abuse of his status, his wealth of illicit and legal assets and the length of his sentence, Ching was granted bail after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.
So one must question whether it really should have come as a surprise that when officials went to deliver the summons to prison to Ching, they found that he and his family had fled to Canada.
However, what makes his escape even more outrageous is that, at some point during the time Ching was fighting the corruption charges and appealing the guilty verdicts against him, he was able to legally change his name to Ching Shu-hua (井樹華) without anyone in the judicial system either discovering the name change or worrying about the possibility he might be planning to flee.
Think back to the outcry three years ago when it was discovered that British businessman Zain Dean had fled Taiwan, using a friend’s passport, after receiving a four-year jail term for a fatal hit-and-run incident — and the resulting demands that he be repatriated from the UK to serve his time.
Yet Dean only did what so many others have done for years. Three years on, even more people have been able to evade prison by fleeing after the final verdict in their cases — not to mention those who do not wait around for the judicial process to run its course before making their escape.
Article 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) says that a verdict must be promptly carried out. The problem is that there is often a lengthy delay between judges delivering a verdict in court and completing the written version, and prosecutors have to wait until they receive the written verdict before they can issue a notification of sentence to the convicted defendant.
There has been a lot of finger-pointing in Kaohsiung as prosecutors and the courts blame each other for allowing Ching to flee, while all that Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) could think of to say was that the “current mechanism to prevent major criminals from absconding is not working.”
That appears to be one of the major understatements of the year.
A lot of money is spent on the supervision or detention of defendants who have not yet been convicted — the treatment of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) being a prime example. It is well past time that more attention is paid to those who have been found guilty.
The simplest solution would be to require detention as soon as the final verdict in a case is read out in court, without waiting for prosecutors to receive a written copy to act. If the Ministry of Justice has a better idea, let us hear it.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS