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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS