Amid the controversy surrounding Taiwanese fraud suspects’ deportation from Kenya to China and calls from lawmakers to protect their rights, Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) said that criminals should not be protected. She might not be the only one who thinks that way, as most in the judiciary seem to consider themselves akin to the fictional Song Dynasty’s Justice Bao (包青天), an attitude which is keeping the nation from becoming a mature democracy governed by the rule of law with genuine protection of human rights.
Chinese police forcibly taking dozens of Taiwanese fraud suspects — who were acquitted by Kenyan courts — to Beijing caused an uproar in Taiwan, with the public and lawmakers demanding that the government “save” the suspects and have them tried in Taiwan to protect their rights, as they do not trust China’s judicial system.
The government came under fire for not defending the rights of Taiwanese despite a cross-strait agreement to fight crime and have judicial exchanges.
Luo responded to the criticism by saying: “It is not good to lose focus with ideas of democracy and human rights.”
“Should we protect criminals?” Luo said. “Human rights do not include committing crimes or the right to hurt others.”
Luo’s comments came as a shock to many.
It is true that no one has the right to hurt others, but as a minister of justice in a democratic nation, she should understand that every person — suspects and criminals included — should also enjoy the protection of their basic human rights.
Suspects should have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to defend themselves, and they should be granted legal assistance in court and a fair trial.
Luo should understand that such ideas do not amount to “losing focus”; rather, they should be the focus of a democracy and a society that adheres to the principles of human rights.
The first step for Taiwan to become a nation governed by the rule of law and a protector of human rights would be getting rid of the influence of Justice Bao — a fictional character based on a Chinese official, Bao Zheng (包拯), who lived more than 1,000 years ago and is praised as righteous and fair, and even worshiped as a “god of justice” in temples.
In fiction and dramatic works, Justice Bao is described as an all-knowing judge who could tell whether a suspect is lying, and would force the suspect to admit to the charges through torture, and would behead the most malicious criminals in court immediately after handing down verdicts.
Justice Bao was an admired figure in ancient China, when government officials were extremely corrupt and doled out punishments only to the disadvantaged.
TV series, movies and novels about Bao have been popular in Taiwan, with politicians and even judicial institutions often using his image to promote judicial reform.
However, in a modern democracy, people certainly do not need Justice Bao.
The image of Justice Bao being deeply rooted in the minds of judicial personnel and the public is not good for the nation, and could be a serious obstacle on Taiwan’s path toward becoming a modern democratic nation governed by the rule of law.
It is time for Luo, as well as many judges and prosecutors, to stop playing Justice Bao and realize that anyone can end up in court, so protecting the basic rights of suspects is not protecting “criminals,” but protecting innocent people — they might have learned it in their first class in law school, but they might need to be reminded that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
RSS