Response No. 2 on justice
In “Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2,” published in the Taipei Times on Dec. 2, the signatories again criticized Taiwan’s judicial procedures. Misunderstandings concerning Taiwan’s criminal procedure law are obvious here. Following its response published in the Taipei Times on Nov. 25, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of China has deemed it necessary to clarify these misunderstandings.
1. There is a difference between pretrial detention and preventive detention. “Pretrial detention” is employed as a means of preventing defendants, who are alleged to have committed felonies punishable with a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, from absconding and destroying evidence, but only where there are difficulties in prosecution, trial or the execution of a sentence. Such detentions are ordered by a judge or a panel of three judges when one of the aforementioned requirements is met. Should there exist any possibility of tampering with witnesses or evidence, detained suspects are barred from being interviewed and corresponding with anyone except their defense counsel(s). Open Letter No. 2 clearly shows a misunderstanding in that it suggested that such detentions might be politically motivated.
2. The correspondence issue: To avail detained suspects of legal assistance, those whose correspondence with the outside world is prohibited do retain the right to correspond with and be interviewed by their defense lawyers. Our laws protect the privilege of confidential communication between a lawyer and his client. But in the case where detention has been deemed necessary to avoid collusion with other defendants and witnesses, it is required that communications between the detained and his lawyer be recorded. This is an attempt to balance a suspect’s right to counsel with a need to prevent obstruction of justice. Once an investigation is completed, the documents, files and other evidence that prosecutors have collected will be submitted to the trial court, and the defense counsel may examine such evidence prior to the trial.
3. On investigation confidentiality: With respect to the allegation that prosecutors leaked information to the press, former president Chen [Shui-bian, 陳水扁] was considered a suspect in a 2006 corruption case in which his wife was indicted as his accomplice. The aforementioned case had been publicly tried for some time and had been reported on often. The media might have access to sources other than the prosecutor’s office, including the defense counsel, defendants and even witnesses.
4. On the lawyers’ code of ethics: In Open Letter No. 2, it was contended that a probe concerning Cheng Wen-lung [鄭文龍], the defense counsel for former president Chen, is confirmation of strong political bias in the judicial system. Please allow me to lay out the sequence of events to show that such a claim is not in keeping with the facts. The Taipei District Court ordered that Chen be detained on Nov. 11, and Mr Cheng communicated with the media about the situation on Nov. 12, issuing a 10-point statement on Chen’s behalf denouncing the “death of the judiciary.” Mr Cheng attempted to politicize the ongoing investigation and mislead the press, which may be considered to not only have the appearance of impropriety, but also to be a violation of the lawyers’ code of ethics. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice, the competent authority overseeing practicing lawyers, issued an official notice to the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office and the Taipei Bar Association to investigate whether any violation of ethics rules was made in conveying a detained suspect’s messages to the outside world. It is the duty of the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office and the Taipei Bar Association to decide whether or not to take action against Mr Cheng.
5. On “selective prosecution”: The signatories quoted the remarks of Professor Jerome Cohen and Mr Nigel Li [李念祖] to argue that prosecutors targeted only one particular political group, the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP]. Prosecutors are obligated to investigate any act of alleged corruption committed by government officials. To protect the innocent and prosecute the real criminals, public prosecutors are required by law to perform their duties independently and impartially without any interference from any sector. As for the prosecutors’ alleged prejudice against ex-government officials of the DPP, it is universally acknowledged that the crime of corruption is premised on its being committed by incumbent officials of the party in power. The opposition party enjoyed no such access; thus, there are no grounds for such investigations. Therefore, the allegation of prosecutorial bias against the DPP is entirely baseless.
6. As for the allegation concerning my public comments on current investigations in Open Letter No. 2, I did not discuss the content of cases or give any specific instructions. The Ministry of Justice has released the text of my relevant statements. As Minister of Justice, I am fully aware of my boundaries and never step beyond them.
I appreciate the signatories’ continued concern about our criminal justice system. All of our prosecutors, without exception, are under the supervision of the prosecutor-general. There can be no doubt that our public prosecutors endeavor to prosecute crimes and protect the innocent while respecting due process.
WANG CHING-FENG
Minister of Justice
Taipei
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
Former Hong Kong media magnate Jimmy Lai (黎智英), who on Monday was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his role in the 2019 Hong Kong democracy movement and “colluding with foreign forces,” once called on members of the US government for support in his struggle against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Speaking to a forum at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in July 2019, Lai, speaking about the US having the moral authority over the CCP, said: “It’s like they are going to battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in
RSS