President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is suing a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator and two media personalities for NT$10 million (US$316,500) over allegations that he had accepted dubious political donations. However, it is by no means certain that these lawsuits will work out in Ma’s favor.
Consider the case involving a media pundit’s recent accusation that Ma received illegal political donations. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 310 of the Criminal Code, defendants accused of slander must prove that what they said is true to be found not guilty. However, this rule gives rise to a procedural contradiction, because if defendants are required to prove that their statements are true, they will have to give up their right to remain silent to be able to present evidence. Aside from contravening the principle of the presumption of innocence, this undermines the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself.
To resolve this, the Council of Grand Justices’ Interpretation No. 509 extends the scope of non-culpability, finding that even when the accused cannot prove the truthfulness of their statements, if, based on the evidence they present, the court finds that they had reasonable grounds to think the statements were true, it cannot find them guilty.
This is what is known as the maxim that when a deed may be considered both good and bad, the law should look more to the good. Accordingly, in relation to Ma’s defamation suits, if criminal proceedings are initiated, the accused may contend that anything they said or wrote had not only already been reported by news media, but was being investigated by the Special Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. They may argue that since what they said was not smoke without fire, it cannot be proven to be malicious. Presented with such arguments, the court would naturally be unable to find the defendants guilty.
Although the chances of the accused being found guilty of defamation are extremely low, because Interpretation No. 509 applies to criminal cases, there are doubts as to whether it can be used to absolve defendants of liability for civil damages. It is especially difficult in lawsuits seeking damages for harm done to a person’s reputation, for as long as the plaintiff can prove that their moral rights have been harmed, the defendant will have to prove the veracity of any source they may have quoted, making it very hard to refute the plaintiff’s contentions.
And, while there is no law stating that the president cannot be subpoenaed, any court he attends would certainly accord him a courteous reception. The result will be that the two parties will not be evenly matched.
Furthermore, civil actions are conducted according to the adversarial system, under which judges basically do not intervene in the investigation, in addition to which all the information and material evidence are in the hands of the more powerful party to the case. This makes it extremely difficult for defendants to prove the truthfulness of their words. If they lose because of this, it will be a blow to freedom of expression.
Therefore, for the sake of safeguarding freedom of expression, the maxim that the law looks more to the good than the bad, as established by the Council of Grand Justices in their interpretation, must not be limited to absolving defendants of criminal liability for defamation, but should also apply to civil proceedings.
Furthermore, if Ma insists on trying to prove his innocence by suing people on every occasion, the public will only become more suspicious that he has some kind of connection with business corporations.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of the Department of Law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS