When some Taiwanese read news about members of a Hong Kong publishing house and related bookstore going “missing,” they might have snickered to themselves. After all, they live in a free society that observes human rights. However, when these same people discovered that military police had searched a private residence and confiscated “historical documents” obtained from the Internet, one can only presume the laughter stopped.
The Military Police Command was careful to point out that the whole process was aboveboard. The search was conducted only after the man in question, surnamed Wei (魏), had signed a right-to-search consent form, while officers were supervised and the entire process was filmed. Military police are a law enforcement body invested with judicial police powers, which is clearly stipulated in the Judicial Police Dispatching Act (調度司法警察條例), the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) and the Code of Court Martial Procedure (軍事審判法). Nevertheless, these same laws also state that military police should obey and assist prosecutors and judges. Do military police really have the right to enter a private residence and conduct searches or confiscate evidence?
The command explained that Wei had signed a search consent form. Well, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, both public prosecutors and police officers have the right to apply with a court for a search warrant. However, before they do so, police officers, including military police, must secure the approval of a public prosecutor before they submit an application. Only a judge has the right to issue a search warrant, which needs to bear a judge’s signature. Not even public prosecutors are able to conduct a search without having gone through these procedures. As such, the command was already in violation of the law when it executed the search solely on the basis of the consent form.
The ability to conduct searches involves a serious limitation of people’s basic rights, to the extent that they can even result in a violation of those rights. This being the case, courts — arbiters of who is allowed to conduct these searches — must be careful when they adjudge the necessity of a search request. So what if Wei had possession of White Terror-era files on military police investigations: Was it really necessary for authorities to search his residence to obtain evidence? The files in question dated to the 1960s and 1970s. Regardless of whether they actually were White Terror-era investigation files, according to the Classified National Security Information Protection Act (國家機密保護法), they had long ago passed the 30-year classification period.
Even if Wei was in possession of these files or documents and was suspected of concealing property or of “offences against privacy,” the command should still have first applied for permission from a judge to execute a search. And regardless of actual guilt, who on Earth would be willing to be searched? Wei was carted off and restrictions were placed on his freedom. To what extent did he actually give his consent? More laughable still, the Ministry of National Defense’s Political Warfare Bureau gave him an “award” of NT$15,000, saying that was his consultancy fee, not “hush money.” Yeah, right.
This farcical turn of events reveals what the command and the ministry think about the judiciary and the rule of law, and how they remain trapped in the mindset of the totalitarian era.
Authorities, from the president and Cabinet to opposition legislators, should call on these officials to be dealt with. There is a high degree of consensus in the nation that this should be dealt with and that individuals involved should be punished, and the issue should be used as material for education about human rights and the rule of law. This is the only way the nation can ensure such a chain of events does not happen again.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Last month, two major diplomatic events unfolded in Southeast Asia that suggested subtle shifts in the region’s strategic landscape. The 46th ASEAN Summit and the inaugural ASEAN-Gulf-Cooperation Council (GCC)-China Trilateral Summit in Kuala Lumpur coincided with French President Emmanuel Macron’s high-profile visits to Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. Together, they highlighted ASEAN’s maturing global posture, deepening regional integration and China’s intensifying efforts to recalibrate its economic diplomacy amid uncertainties posed by the US. The ASEAN summit took place amid rising protectionist policies from the US, notably sweeping tariffs on goods from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, with duties as high as 49 percent.
RSS