Many media outlets were disappointed that they could not gain access to the court where former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) testified on the Zanadau investment case; there were not enough seats. This once again highlighted the issue of how much access the media should have to court hearings and whether the hearings should be broadcast live. The debate mainly centers on whether cameras in court would interfere with the court's operation. The judiciary and the media think differently about the issue and it is hard to draw a conclusion.
By all means, the Zanadau case is a judicial issue. Yet nobody would naively regard it as a purely judicial case. Politics should not interfere with the judicial system, but the judges themselves can hardly ignore politics.
When there is concern that a trial regarding a highly controversial political case may be manipulated by political forces, the court should do what it can to avoid being used and maintain its independent discretion. A fair judicial system, as demanded by the public, depends on every single case being handled openly and fairly.
Based on his duty to uncover the truth and realize justice, the judge who tried the Zanadau case summoned Lee to testify. His fairness in summoning all concerned, including a former president, is worthy of recognition.
An open trial with a limited audience is legal but not good enough. After all, few judicial cases receive so much attention from the media. It is not only about protecting press freedoms and the public's right to know but also a precious opportunity to educate the public about the rule of law. Unfortunately, our conservative judicial system has missed an opportunity.
If the court hearing that Lee attended had been broadcast live, the cross examination between the prosecutor and defendant would have been transmitted to every home and workplace. Such coverage would not only have satisfied the public's curiosity about the Zanadau case but would also have enhanced the visibility of the new legal practices based on amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such media education would be far more extensive and effective than any public announcements by the Judicial Yuan and would be good for building the public's confidence in the judicial system.
The mishandling of several major cases by the judiciary in the past has raised doubts among the public. As judicial reforms start to bear fruit, the judiciary cannot afford to fail in such a high-profile case as the Zanadau case. Maybe the system needs to be flexible at times. More open marketing is necessary to win the public's trust in the judicial system.
Lo Ping-cheng is a lawyer and an executive member of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Jennie Shih
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS