A young baker in Taichung had a passion for confectionery. Three years ago he started a night market stall and, with the help of his retired parents, worked his way up to having his own shop. His dream died with him beneath the wheels of the speeding car of a Golden Jaguar nightclub hostess, who had her driver’s license suspended for drunk driving. His elderly father broke down in tears and asked if the tragedy had been the parents’ doing.
Of course it was not the parents’ fault: The young baker was killed by a habitual drunk driver.
However, it could be asked who allowed this habitual offender, who had been caught by the police, indicted and tried, to go on speeding around the city.
The US has had a series of shooting incidents. Taiwan’s drunk drivers have been no less deadly and their biggest accomplices are judges sitting in their ivory towers.
In 1999, among other amendments to the Criminal Code, Article 185-3 was added to deal with the problem of drunk driving. Although penalties have gradually increased, incidents caused by drunk driving are still one of the main reasons for tragedies that befall many families.
During the nearly 20 years since the article was enacted, police have faced resistance from elected officials and drunk drivers, while judges have repeatedly made judgements that miss the intent of the legislation, choosing to side with drunk drivers.
For example, Article 35, Paragraph 4 of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例) stipulates that drivers who refuse to take alcohol level tests will not only be fined NT$90,000, but also have their cars immediately impounded and their licenses revoked. These penalties are considerably harsher than those for drivers who take the test and are found to be over the limit.
The point is to not let drivers who refuse to take Breathalyzer tests get away with lenient treatment, otherwise it would encourage drivers to refuse the tests.
However, some judges have found ways to help people get off the hook, despite their refusal to take the test.
For example, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that a driver who had locked his car doors, fallen asleep and refused to undergo a Breathalyzer test should not have to pay the NT$90,000 fine or have his license revoked.
The court’s said the police had performed random, summary and indiscriminate Breathalyzer tests on the drivers of all vehicles passing along that section of road, which, in the judges’ view, did not comply with Article 8 of the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法), which says: “The police may stop any form of transportation that has posed a hazard or is likely to pose a hazard according to objective and reasonable judgement.”
The judges concluded that the police acted unlawfully by stopping and inspecting the car.
The man was allegedly driving along the road when he saw a roadside checkpoint and warning lights. He then parked by the roadside and fell asleep so quickly and deeply that he failed to hear the police knocking on his car window and calling out to him. Did he really fall asleep or was he pretending to sleep to avoid the test?
The answer is so obvious that 99 out of 100 respondents in an opinion poll said the driver was pretending. Only one person — a judge — believed that the driver was innocent and that he just happened to have felt tired and fallen asleep when he arrived at that particular place.
People cannot expect every judge to have enough knowledge and experience. All they can do is call on judges to respect police officers’ professional judgement and not undo the efforts of frontline police officers to discourage drunk driving.
Sandy Yeh is secretary-general of the Asian Association of Police Studies.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS