Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) corruption trial moved into the second stage yesterday when responsibility for the case was transferred from the Taipei District Court to the Taiwan High Court.
It can only be hoped that the High Court, prosecutors and the judiciary in general handle the second trial professionally and in line with established legal procedures, unlike the District Court. There is little evidence, however, that they are capable of doing this.
The irregularities during the investigation process and first trial — the press conference by prosecutors vowing to “get” Chen, the almost daily leaking of privileged information, the changing of judges, the skit by prosecutors mocking Chen and the spurious extensions of detention — cast a shadow over the whole episode that only a fair, controversy-free second trial can lift.
The High Court judges randomly selected yesterday — Pong Shing-ming (彭幸鳴), Deng Zhen-giu (鄧振球) and Pan Tsui-hsueh (潘翠雪) — must be allowed to see proceedings through to their conclusion. Their first test was last night’s hearing on whether to grant the former president bail. They failed that test.
The reasons given in previous detention hearings — that Chen could destroy evidence — expired once the first trial concluded. The argument that he has money overseas and therefore presents a flight risk could easily be remedied by either a round-the-clock guard or a monitoring device.
Chen should have been freed. In addition, without his freedom, he and his lawyers will not have the chance to formulate an adequate defense.
The timing of Tuesday’s latest raft of charges against him now looks like an obvious attempt by prosecutors to force the High Court judges to extend Chen’s detention for a further two months — and it worked. Although prosecutors deny this, the fact that the same thing has happened twice before suggests it was no coincidence.
By denying Chen bail again, it is beginning to look increasingly like he will remain behind bars for the rest of his life — regardless of concerns for his rights and due process. This is an extremely worrying turn of events and makes a mockery of this government’s claim that it respects human rights.
Meanwhile, a conclusion is awaited on another extremely important aspect of the case — the inexplicably delayed Council of Grand Justices decision on whether the move to change judges during the first trial was unconstitutional. Asian legal scholar Jerome Cohen said a decision was expected in April and a ruling in Chen’s favor would have invalidated the first trial.
The longer any ruling is delayed, and the longer he is denied bail, the more weight will be given to Chen’s claims of persecution.
As for the former president, he would be better off disassociating himself from the likes of attorney Roger Lin (林志昇) and the misguided attempt to involve US President Barack Obama in his troubles. He should concentrate his legal expertise on deconstructing the ramshackle evidence and abuse of authority that was used to convict him in the first place.
Only by remaining focused on establishing his innocence and not allowing himself to be distracted can Chen hope to tackle the huge obstacles he faces.
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS