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
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
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS