Prosecutors in Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) corruption case filed a request for his detention on suspicion of accepting bribes and profiteering. The Taipei District Court judge rejected the request for a number of reasons.
First, Ko is not a member of the Taipei Urban Planning Commission. Second, he lacks relevant expertise. Third, he trusted the majority resolution and the opinions of former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng (彭振聲). Fourth, although increasing the floor-area-ratio (FAR) of the Core Pacific City project was illegal, there is space for reasonable interpretation.
The judge concluded that the evidence was insufficient to confirm whether Ko knew his actions were illegal and that the likelihood of conviction was not high, and ruled to release him without bail. However, the Taipei City District Court failed to elaborate on whether Ko contravened his duties by accepting bribes. That headache would be left for the High Court to handle on appeal.
According to the Taiwan High Administrative Court’s July 2020 decision, the Core Pacific City project’s FAR of 560 percent was a one-time guarantee, and the Core Pacific City’s appeal was rejected. This administrative court decision, a win for the Taipei City Government, restricted the project’s FAR to 560 percent. It was not a piece of scrap paper. Can the Taipei mayor just give away an additional 20 percent FAR with his signature? On what legal basis is that allowed? Did Ko really not understand the illegality of his actions? Can he truly claim that he was unaware of the existence of such an important verdict? For the winner of a case to pay reparations to the losing party — in the form of a 20 percent increase in FAR — without any form of benefit or repayment is just absurd. Is a battle where the winner pays the loser one worth fighting? This is just common sense; it does not require any expertise.
The judge indicated that the Taipei City Government’s 2021 decision to increase the project’s FAR by 20 percent was illegal, but it failed to review this key administrative court ruling. If he had, perhaps there would have been a different outcome.
The Court Organization Act (法院組織法) only stipulates the number of judges required after indictment, but it does not outline how many judges should rule on pre-indictment detention hearings. In practice, all court administrative regulations stipulate that one judge makes an independent ruling. This is extremely dangerous and irresponsible because the details of corruption cases are often quite complex and not immediately made apparent.
Even after years and years of a trial, a judge might not necessarily make an accurate decision. Judges in detention hearings are not superhuman.
How could they be expected to finish reading more than 1,000 pages of documents, completely digest their contents, and come up with the references for a well-backed decision in just a few hours? Who would believe such extraordinary abilities?
Therefore, judicial reform should start by addressing institutional flaws. Regulations should be amended to replace the single-judge system. Detention hearings of high-profile criminal cases should have three judges that work collaboratively and make a joint decision. This would help avoid unnecessary detentions and reduce the longstanding problem of a legal system with ever-changing phases and inconsistent interpretations. Otherwise, deciding whether to detain someone would continue to resemble a game of table tennis (take the case of former vice premier Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦), which bounced back and forth three times). How else would the judicial system earn the public’s trust?
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS