On June 11, a "collegiate bench" of the Taipei District Court in charge of the Zanadau Development case approved business tycoon Liu Tai-ying's (劉泰英) appeal against the ban on him leaving the country. Prosecutors were deeply shocked by the decision and have promised to file an interlocutory appeal against it. However, unless prosecutors also file a motion and succeed in suspending the execution of the decision, Liu may be able to leave the country before the court can rule on the interlocutory appeal -- as Article 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) states that "an interlocutory appeal shall not be effective to suspend the execution of a decision."
This decision is reminiscent of several major criminal cases over the past few years, including the high-profile case of Wu Tse-yuan (
Liu's case may not be the last of its kind if we do not seriously face and handle the insufficient legal regulations regarding bans on people leaving the country.
It's astonishing that more than 40,000 people have been barred from leaving the country over the past three years. The agencies which deal with these regulations may be suspected of abusing their power. Over 30,000 of these cases are actually non-judicial, and both their legal bases and causes deserve our attention and review.
In practice, the authorities cite their power (endorsed by the Code of Criminal Procedure) to limit the residence of someone who is standing trial as a legal basis for barring people from leaving the country. But there are still no complete and concrete regulations on the conditions, length and remedies of this limitation.
Take Liu's appeal, for example. On what conditions should the judge decide to approve or overrule it? Should the plaintiff and defendant have a debate in court? Should the ban be temporarily lifted or be lifted with certain deals? What is the legal consequence of violating the court's decision? Should the regulations on such a ban be made exceptional, so that they can only be executed when the decision is confirmed [by an interlocutory appeal result]? Or should an immediate interlocutory appeal system be introduced in an effort to avoid appeals that have no substantial effect?
In fact, it's necessary to build and strengthen the regulations on this ban not only in judicial cases, but also in non-judicial ones, to protect people's freedom of leaving and entering the country.
Considering that Taiwanese people frequently travel abroad on private and business trips, the existing law is seriously insufficient to protect their basic right to travel or do business overseas. Especially when some people have only been informed at customs that they cannot leave the country. This situation is embarrassing and may damage their human dignity.
Perhaps this ban may not damage a person's freedom as much as a detention order. However, statistically speaking, the possibility of a person being barred from leaving the country is much higher than the possibility of being detained, making it a more serious problem. But for people who suffer due to wrong or illegal bans on them leaving the country (eg, those who die because they cannot seek timely medical treatment overseas, those who are unable to attend weddings, funerals and other important events abroad, and those who suffer business losses), they can hardly be granted national compensation. Is this fair? Although this ban is needed in reality, shouldn't it also be restricted?
Lo Ping-cheng is a lawyer and an executive member of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS