The Taiwan High Court on Wednesday, to the surprise of many, acquitted former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of abetting a leak of classified information. As part of the reasons for the acquittal, the court cited Taiwan’s constitutional government system and referred to presidential systems of government to justify Ma’s leak of the classified information.
The verdict is an international embarrassment, failing as it does to uphold the principle of the separation of powers and the rule of the law that are essential to democracy, and confirming that the president has the power to interfere with ongoing individual investigations.
The High Court ruled that: “The nation’s president is not a titular head of state, and even though members of the general public and scholars of law and politics often refer to the nation’s political system of constitutional government as a hybrid, semi-presidential system, in practice the premier is directly appointed by the president, while ministers are usually determined jointly through discussion by the president and the premier. The public considers the premier to be chief of staff, and in that they are not wrong… for Ma to have attempted to ascertain whether this case involved illicit lobbying and to have brought the premier in on the matter, in the interests of dissipating a political storm and maintaining political stability in this country in the national interest, conforms to the political situation here in Taiwan over the past few years, and is not inconsistent with the system of constitutional government.”
By extension, Ma’s presidential powers covered investigating ongoing individual cases, allowing him to extend the powers of the president into judicial cases. This is quite inconceivable in a democracy.
The US is perhaps the gold standard for the presidential system. Even there, the president does not have the power to act “in the interests of dissipating a political storm and maintaining political stability in [the] country in the national interest” and to use this as a pretext for intervening in individual cases.
A case in point: When US President Donald Trump attempted to implement what he called a “travel ban” to prevent immigration from seven countries, he was stopped in his tracks by the courts; neither did the president have the right to interfere with the judicial process.
In the same way, Trump is even more vexed with the ongoing inquiry into Russian interference in the US election, and yet the president has no power to find out about the progress of the inquiry, or indeed to ask his secretary of state or attorney-general to deal with it as a means to “dissipate a political storm.”
The High Court has essentially taken it upon itself to fabricate a kind of superpresidential system — more powerful even than the US presidential system — all to enable Ma to evade conviction.
As part of this fabricated system, the president in Taiwan is apparently allowed to intervene in individual judicial cases, listen to the transcripts of conversations of the incumbent legislative speaker in an ongoing investigation being carried out by the prosecutor-general, while disregarding the principle of the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution.
By the same logic, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), and indeed all presidents in Taiwan from this day on, can proceed along the “Ma model” of governance.
Now, whenever the head of a branch of government is involved in an investigation, the president will be allowed to listen in on wiretapped recordings, or ask their prosecutor-general to give them a report on the progress of the case. Is that right?
The High Court’s acquittal of Ma not only rides roughshod over democratic values and constitutional government, it harms the public’s trust in the judiciary.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Tu Yu-an and Paul Cooper
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS