The judicial system is the last line of defense for justice. The scales on the Ministry of Justice’s emblem symbolize fairness and impartiality in the execution of the law.
However, judicial officials have been accused of bias in investigations, indictments and rulings.
A National Chung Cheng University Crime Research Center poll released on Aug. 17 shows that Taiwanese doubt the impartiality of the judicial system. It found that 83.2 percent of respondents do not believe that judges handle cases objectively. While the poll suggests that the public’s trust in prosecutors has risen to a seven-year high of more than 30 percent, the figure nonetheless indicates that most Taiwanese still have no faith in the impartiality of the nation’s investigation apparatus.
Many find reasons to doubt the impartiality of the judiciary as case after case proves that the system is not necessarily unprejudiced when it comes to cases involving politicians.
Judicial officials were swift in their 2011 investigation into allegations of irregularities involving then-Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in connection with the Yu Chang Biologics Inc (中裕新藥) case. The case was aggressively pursued and had a crucial role in the outcome of the presidential election, from which former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) emerged victorious.
In contrast, investigations into Mega International Commercial Bank (兆豐銀行) over questionable loans given to the Chinese Nationalist Party-run (KMT) Central Investment Co (中央投資公司) and suspected irregularities stemming from its failure to observe US money laundering laws — which led to a US$180 million fine from the New York State Department of Financial Services — seem to be progressing at a snail’s pace.
A case involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is another example. Minutes after he stepped out of the Presidential Office Building upon the expiration of his second term in office on May 20, 2008, he was summoned to face corruption and fraud charges in connection with his “state affairs fund.”
After serving six years of a 20-year sentence for graft convictions, Chen was released on medical parole on Jan. 5 last year. However, Chen’s trial, and the investigation and prosecution of his cases, have been criticized for procedural flaws, such as an order in December 2008 to replace Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) with Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓).
Ma is a different story.
He has been implicated in more than 20 cases, including allegedly helping Taipei Dome contractor Farglory Group (遠雄集團) secure profits by agreeing to waive royalty fees for land use during his tenure as Taipei mayor; his alleged role in a classified information leak in 2013, which involved the wiretapping of then-legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) telephone; and corruption allegations over unexplained personal wealth during his time as president.
However, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office has not opened investigations into these cases, causing suspicion among the public that the judiciary is dawdling in cases involving pan-blue politicians.
An investigation should not be rushed, but the slow pace at which officials probe the Mega Bank case and those involving Ma is why most people do not trust the judicial system.
Tsai has pledged to push and implement judicial reform; hopefully it will not be an empty promise.
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