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
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS