Everyone knows that of the infinite number of conflicts we encounter in life, only a very small number are suitable for resolution through the judicial system.
Anyone who has ever had any experience of law courts will also know that judges are not gods and that the courts are not an antiseptic operating room in which society can be dissected, and the process that leads to a judicial judgement does not have the unlimited scope of academic debate. After all, when two parties meet in court, their spirited argumentation only aims to achieve victory as soon as possible.
Anyone who puts their hope of victory in the courts knows that before their case came to trial, many other cases were heard, and many others who have hoped for victory have long since gone home.
To put it simply, although justice is priceless, the process through which we seek justice is an extremely limited resource. No one should be more aware of this than Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
After all, they have served in public life for many decades. And even if they aren't aware of this, their legal team should be aware of it. But we can see from statements made by the plaintiffs after the Taiwan High Court rejected their case that they have absolutely no understanding of this, and in the meantime abuse the courts for not doing their job, while insisting that they will appeal the judgement.
Let's ignore for the moment what this endless "extra time" on the presidential election has done to the blue camp's hopes in next month's legislative election, and look at what this "big" case has done to the many ordinary people thirsting for justice.
Reports have shown that just the re-examination of ballots cost a total of NT$77 million, of which the plaintiffs paid only NT$17 million.
As for the NT$60 million incurred by the High Court case, the plaintiffs only paid a NT$3,000 judgement fee.
In addition, this case has involved 3,000 government officials and administrative personnel, and both the plaintiffs and the government hired hundreds of lawyers to participate in the re-examination of the ballots, not to mention the innumerable alternative service personnel, doctors and others who have been summoned as witnesses.
Both parties also formed extensive legal teams and the case used up the time of three High Court judges for months on end in writing up a judgement that is hundreds of pages thick. The resources brought to bear on this one case could have brought justice to innumerable others who have cases pending before the courts.
Moreover, on the request of the plaintiffs, the courts sealed every single ballot box and preserved the electoral records and electoral receipts.
If these resources had been used for regular legal proceedings, how many people could have already found justice?
But these precious resources have been wantonly squandered on the case to invalidate the results of the March 20 presidential election.
As for the plaintiffs, the NT$17 million they were required pay for the recount was borne largely by some of their supporters, and though this was an opportunity to gather evidence for a case to invalidate the election itself, they will still be unable to win the election through the courts.
In any case, the confident claims and detailed arguments of the plaintiffs' legal team that the vote count was falsified, that the bundling of the referendum with the election affected its result, that the March 19 shooting incident was staged, that national defense personnel were illegally kept from voting and that there was election fraud, have all been examined by the High Court and rejected.
In terms of litigation strategy and the law, this can only be seen as a massive defeat. Now, in casting aspersions on the impartiality of the judiciary, Lien and Soong are simply exercising what destructive force they can now that their own dreams have not been realized.
They have no care for the contents of the national treasury, nor for the legal resources obtained with the money of their supporters, nor for the bond of trust in the judicial system that lawyers and judges have painstakingly built up over the years.
Looking at the matter calmly, the defeat of the pan-blue camp after the KMT and the PFP formed an alliance has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction, and because the election was affected by a number of unexpected events, this has naturally given rise to suspicions.
Feudal society is full of stories of how the "ultimate prize" was won through trickery, and no amount of academic research through historical documents will replace stories based on rumor and hearsay in the imagination of the general public.
But we no longer live in a Byzantine world of palace intrigue, and the 16 million voters are not puppets for the politicians to manipulate.
An election conducted on clear rules took place more than half a year ago, and no matter how hard it has been for the losers to accept defeat, they should follow the accepted rules of litigation, presenting their evidence and making their case. But today, they have used up many legal resources that ordinary people could only hope to have access to, and having done so, they do not even bother to read the whole judgement or point out any illegalities within it before claiming that the High Court has failed in its job to look into the matter carefully.
How does the man in the street, who desires to obtain justice through the courts, feel about this?
The case for the invalidity of the election results will now be taken before the Supreme Court, and the judgement for the annulling of the elections will soon be released.
Although the controversy over the elections will delay the ultimate pain of defeat, the judgement of the courts will finally bring it to a close.
The courts are entrusted with the task of settling disputes, but they don't have the authority or the ability to alter the verdict of 16 million voters.
No matter how professional and impartial the case's judges are, they are unlikely to have much success in resolving the enmity and lack of trust that exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
It is said that "only the person who caused the trouble can resolve it," and in this case it is only the plaintiffs who can use their concern for the people and their political wisdom to bring this case to an end.
We hope that after they have taken the case to the Supreme Court, they will feel that enough has been done. This will be conducive to the good fortune of the nation and the prosperity of the people.
Howard Shyr is an associate professor at National Chengchi University, an executive member of the Campaign For Media Reform and a former member of the board at Taiwan Television (TTV).
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
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