Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) launched a hunger strike soon after she was detained by prosecutors over her alleged involvement in a corruption case connected to the construction of a landfill project. Her vehement protest has brought into focus problems involved in handling the cases of many former and incumbent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials who have recently been detained.
Su’s detention has prompted DPP supporters to question whether the prosecution is politically motivated. Yunlin District Chief Prosecutor Liu Chia-fang (劉家芳) rebutted such accusations: “The judiciary is not the dog of the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] nor is it a tiger raised by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP]. Anybody involved in corruption will be investigated.”
As these cases are under investigation, it is hard for outsiders to make a judgment now. It is true, however, that prosecutors violated procedure when they took Su in for questioning and then applied to have her remanded into custody the same day. The Yunlin District Court offered to release her on NT$6 million (US$183,000) bail, but she spurned the offer. This abnormal judicial procedure has fueled public dissatisfaction.
In a country where the rule of law prevails, prosecutors must summon an accused for questioning and obtain conclusive evidence before bringing a case to court. Pre-trial detention should be avoided because it amounts to punishment without conviction, which is contrary to the Constitution. Detention prior to a trial should be restricted to extreme circumstances.
For many years, regardless of which party was in power, prosecutors have resorted to pre-trial detention in cases where the accused has not cooperated with the investigation. Although the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) states that the accused has the right to remain silent, silence is generally interpreted by prosecutors as a sign of guilt. This attitude violates the fundamental principles of criminal procedure.
Yunlin County prosecutors claim that the case against Su is based on firm evidence and that they can quickly proceed to a prosecution. If sufficient evidence has already been gathered, however, why would prosecutors worry that Su might collude to conceal evidence, and why would they need to apply to remand her into custody on these grounds? Concern that collusion may take place is a common rationale in applications for detention, but it is also the weakest grounds for remanding someone into custody.
The fact is that there is a whole string of recent legal cases involving serving government officials who are members of the DPP. As the legal process casts a shadow into the realm of politics, it is hardly surprising when judicial institutions become a target for counteraccusations. Suspicions of judicial bias have prompted a number of academics, journalists and others in the US to sign an open letter expressing their worries about the state of Taiwan’s democracy.
The detentions have created widespread unease within the DPP. Angry party supporters are accusing the authorities of political victimization. Their sense of injustice was an important factor in fomenting the bloody clashes that occurred during last week’s visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).
Prosecutor Eric Chen (陳瑞仁) of the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office recently said the procuratorial system should avoid clustering the accused into particular groups. His statement could be seen as an admission of political interference in certain cases. When investigating political figures, judicial institutions must stick strictly to the evidence and ensure that prosecution and trials are conducted free of any interference. If they take a wrong step in such cases, they risk being seen as political tools and becoming embroiled in political confrontation.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS