Over the past few months, the Special Investigation Panel that has been investigating allegations of money laundering against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and members of his family has successfully applied to have a series of people taken into custody.
The rank of those detained has risen to include former deputy secretary-general of the Presidential Office Ma Yong-cheng (馬永成) and former National Security Council secretary-general Chiou I-jen (邱義仁), and now Chen himself is behind bars. Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) and Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) have also been detained on corruption charges.
The investigations have sometimes been closed and sometimes open, allowing the media to reveal a lot of information about them, while unproved rumors about the cases are circulating everywhere. As a result, more and more people are expressing doubts about the judicial process, and many have accused the prosecution of using pretrial detention as a means to pressure the accused into making confessions.
Times are changing. In the past, pretrial detention was a useful tool in the hands of the prosecution. In recent years, however, the trend in Taiwan has been for the Criminal Procedure Act (刑事訴訟法) to be interpreted in a way that prioritizes the protection of human rights. Are prosecutors clinging to the old way of doing things? There clearly exists a contradiction between the presumption of innocence on the one hand and the system of pretrial detention on the other. This is an issue that can no longer be evaded.
The Judicial Reform Foundation and other civic groups have proposed a list of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act that would serve to promote human rights. The point of the amendments is to confirm that the purpose of pretrial custody is not to help the prosecution expedite indictments.
It is proposed that the maximum time the accused may be detained for the purpose of investigation should be reduced from four months to 20 days, as in Japan. Such a reduction would give adequate protection to the rights of the accused while still providing reasonable time for criminal investigation. In the interest of reviving public confidence in the judicial system, the proposal deserves serious attention.
Lin Feng-cheng is president of the Judicial Reform Foundation and a lawyer.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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