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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS