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
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS