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.
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS