Lawyer and former Straits Exchange Foundation secretary-general C.V. Chen (陳長文) yesterday announced the establishment of the Anti-Obstruction of Justice Referendum Alliance, adding that former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has agreed to spearhead the campaign.
“It is our hope that holding a referendum on political interference in the practice of law could return a pure and clean space back to Taiwan’s judiciary,” Chen said.
He added that Control Yuan member Chen Shih-meng’s (陳師孟) remarks about taking action against judges who are biased against the pan-green camp and lenient on pan-blue members “undermine judicial independence through political interference.”
At first glance, it is encouraging to see a former head of state lend support to the call for an impartial judiciary. However, a closer look at Ma’s track record casts doubt on his credibility in leading such a campaign.
In September 2008, during Ma’s presidency, the then-Special Investigation Division stated during its investigation of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) over alleged financial irregularities that “the prosecutors will be dismissed if they do not produce a result.”
As the division was under the direct supervision of the prosecutor-general, who was nominated by the president, the remark drew accusations of interfering with the judiciary and criticism that Ma was attempting to pressure prosecutors.
In November 2010, when the Taipei District Court acquitted Chen Shui-bian and his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), of money-laundering and bribery charges, then-president Ma said that rulings “cannot be isolated from the public, let alone be opposed to the public’s reasonable expectations.” His remarks again sparked accusations of trying to interfere with the judiciary.
Less than a week later, Chen Shui-bian was found guilty of bribery in the Longtan (龍潭) land acquisition case.
In 2013, Ma became embroiled in an alleged leak of classified information, which involved the wiretapping of then-legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) telephone. As the investigation into Wang was still ongoing, Ma’s meeting with then-prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) not only went against the principle of confidentiality in an ongoing investigation, but also raised questions about his role in the case.
And in December last year, Ma at least gave the impression of interfering in the affairs of the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office when he filed a lawsuit against Taipei Chief Prosecutor Shing Tai-chao (邢泰釗) and Taipei Prosecutor Wang Hsin-chien (王鑫健), and applied for the transfer of a case implicating him of financial irregularities related to the sale of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) assets to another jurisdiction.
Indeed, the judicial system is the last line of defense for justice, not to mention that Article 80 of the Constitution stipulates that judges shall be above partisanship, holding trials independently and in accordance with the law.
Under no circumstances should the impartiality of the judiciary be compromised. Judicial officials, be they investigators, prosecutors or judges, must refrain from employing bias in investigations, indictments and rulings.
However, given Ma’s poor track record of maintaining judicial independence, his involvement in the campaign for a referendum against obstruction of justice might only erode rather than propel the campaign’s momentum.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS