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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS