Former Taipei High Administrative Court judge Chen Hung-pin (陳鴻斌) was convicted in 2016 of sexual harassment and dismissed from his position by the Court of the Judiciary. Following an appeal by Chen, the same court on March 8 overturned its ruling and instead fined Chen a year’s worth of salary, or NT$2.16 million (US$74,049).
Chen Chih-hsiang (陳志祥), one of the five judges who ruled on the appeal, said Chen Hung-pin’s action did not constitute sexual harassment because it did not result in an extramarital affair. His explanation sparked a public outcry.
However, it is worth noting that while the original verdict called for Chen Hung-pin’s dismissal, the phrase “sexual harassment” is nowhere to be found in the verdict. This raises the question why “sexual harassment” was not mentioned in both verdicts.
According to Article 20 of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act (性騷擾防治法), “a person who sexually harasses another person shall be fined between NT$10,000 and NT$100,000,” and Article 21 states that offenders who use their “power, influence or opportunity to sexually harass another person will be given a heavier fine, up to 50 percent” of the original fine.
Moreover, Article 25 stipulates that a person who kisses, hugs or touches the private parts of another when the latter cannot quickly respond or resist can be imprisoned for up to two years.
Based on these stipulations, Chen Hung-pin exercised the power and influence of his higher position over his female assistant, dating the victim and even kissing her. Such misconduct cannot be handled with a mere fine, but is indeed a criminal act, in which case there is no longer any need to consider whether the harasser, a judge, is suitable for his position.
Nevertheless, Article 25 also states that “prosecution for such crime may be instituted only upon a complaint,” which causes a common dilemma in such cases. Even if the victim files a lawsuit, there might be no eyewitness due to the nature of sexual harassment, and it is often difficult to obtain evidence.
This means the victim’s statement is the only evidence available and the victim must therefore appear in court for questioning, thus once more exposing the defendant to secondary victimization.
Even if it can be proved that the accused has kissed or hugged the defendant or touched their private parts, an intent to sexually harass another must also be proved, which increases the difficulty of obtaining a conviction.
Although sexual harassment is defined in Article 2 of the act, concepts such as “harming someone’s personal dignity,” “feeling hostility” and “feeling offended” as a result of sexual statements or behavior are very vague.
If the accused says things like, “I misread her wishes” or “I only wanted to have an extramarital affair,” unconvincing as such statements are, the accused may be ruled not guilty as doubts about the person’s guilt remain and intent cannot be proved.
If the Court of the Judiciary followed such strict reasoning and burden of proof, it is easy to see why the phrase “sexual harassment” does not appear in the verdict and why the judge was only fined for “misbehavior.”
Adding the requirement to show intent to commit sexual harassment for conviction is superfluous, as it often offers an excuse for finding the accused not guilty, and should be removed.
Finding a way to avoid secondary victimization and encouraging victims to come forward to expose sexual harassment is of the utmost importance.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor of law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
An article on the Nature magazine Web site reports that 22 scientists last month wrote to the daily Dagens Nyheter criticizing Sweden’s no-lockdown response to COVID-19. However, evidence-based analysis shows that a lockdown is not a one-size-fits-all strategy and Sweden is showing the world a sustainable way for everybody to fearlessly live with the virus, which is an inevitable situation that everyone must face and accept for a while. The biggest myth about lockdowns is that they are the only solution when an epidemic worsens. A lockdown is a measure to cordon off a seriously affected area so that people in
On Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) spoke during the opening ceremony of this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA). For the first time in the assembly’s history, attendees, including Xi, had to dial in virtually. Xi made no acknowledgement of the Chinese government’s role in causing the COVID-19 pandemic, nor was there any meaningful apology. Instead, he painted China as a benign force for good and a friend to all nations. Except Taiwan, of course. The address was a reheated version of the speech Xi gave at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Xi again attempted to step into the
China’s prevention of Taiwan’s participation as an observer at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO and other UN specialized institutions is misleading the world. China always asserts that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 established the so-called “one China principle,” in which Taiwan is a province of China. This is fake information that is part of China’s grand external propaganda strategy. Resolution 2758 made clear that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legitimate representative of China at the UN and its specialized institutions. However, there is not a single word related to Taiwan in the resolution, no mention of the