In the immediate aftermath of the derailment of a Puyuma Express train, prosecutors focused the investigation on the driver, while senior Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) officials put out the story that the driver’s speeding had led to the accident.
The facts, when they were revealed, showed that this was not the case, and the TRA director-general stepped down.
One thing worth reflecting on, however, is whether the senior TRA officials, the director-general among them, are criminally liable.
According to the second paragraph of Article 276 of the Criminal Code, a person who, in the performance of their occupational duties or activities, commits an offense by neglecting the degree of care required by such an occupation shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years.
The high number of fatalities in the derailment notwithstanding, Article 55 of the Criminal Code stipulates that, where an act constitutes several offenses, only the most severe punishment shall be imposed.
Moreover, according to the first paragraph of Article 14, conduct is committed negligently if the actor fails, although not intentionally, to exercise the duty of care that they should and could have exercised under the circumstances.
Criminal negligence is constituted on the premise that the actor has the duty of care.
As it is impossible for lawmakers to list all the duties of care for all occupations, a court decision relies on the judges’ interpretation of the law for each specific case, which can lead to uncertainty.
Finally, according to the Criminal Code, offenders are only punished when the act is accomplished, not attempted.
As the director-general has the authority over the overall planning of transportation, the maintenance of the railway and transport systems, and the education and training of personnel, he is certainly obliged to supervise transportation safety.
However, in the case of a specific accident, counting specific operational issues — such as train driving safety, vehicle maintenance and normal operation of the signals — among the director-general’s overall responsibilities and duties of care would require a generous interpretation of the law, possibly running afoul of the principle of nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without a law).
Perhaps specific operational issues could be counted among the director-general’s duty of care and maybe an investigation would prove that malfunctioning signals, mechanical failures or problems such as train defects or aging rails did play a part in the derailment — demonstrating that the senior officials failed to provide a proper level of supervision, thus constituting negligence — but if the problems and defects were not bad enough to cause the train to lose control, then the driver should take responsibility for the casualties — even if the officials gave instructions to continue operating a faulty train. However, this is assuming that the driver was not ordered to speed in the interest of punctuality.
The causal relationship between the derailment and other individuals, and the senior officials in particular, is therefore interrupted. The case becomes one of attempted negligence, which is not punishable under the Criminal Code.
Even if senior TRA officials cannot receive criminal punishment — based on criminal law principles such as nulla poena sine lege and in dubio pro reo (when in doubt, rule for the accused) — they still have civil liability and could even receive an administrative punishment.
Accountability should not end when officials step down.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS