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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS