A week after Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) rejected a request by prosecutors to return former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to detention ahead of his trial, a panel of judges ordered on Dec. 25 that Judge Chou be replaced by Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), who would preside over four new cases filed against Chen.
The reason for the change was that the latest cases are related to the “state affairs fund” case that Tsai had been handling. To streamline the litigation process and avoid divergent rulings, the court decided to combine the later cases with the “state affairs fund” case. Judge Chou, who was set to conduct the trial and had already sent out summonses, will no longer hear the case.
This appears to answer the thorny question of whether Chen’s cases should have been combined, and the judicial authorities are likely to be relieved by this reasoning.
But was Judge Chou, who has attracted a lot of attention by freeing Chen without bail and confirming that decision on appeal, really biased, as has been alleged?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) criticized Judge Chou, saying that his record of detaining accused people did not meet human rights standards.
But Judge Lin Meng-huang (林孟皇), who is notable for his heavy sentence for Chen’s son-in-law, Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), over a white-collar crime, pointed out that some of the information citied by Chiu Yi was flawed.
Just as widespread discussions were centering on why Judge Chou allowed Chen to go free pending trial, the court made a U-turn when five presiding judges held a review and decided to pass Judge Chou’s cases on to Judge Tsai, instantly removing him from the process.
The court’s distribution of cases is crucial in determining whether interference in the judiciary has taken place.
In the past, “manual” distribution of cases to judges was criticized for producing irregularities. Thanks to judicial reform activists, an automated system of case distribution was introduced. Because this greatly lowered the possibility of manipulation, it also allowed more room for judicial independence and fairness.
However, there are times when the automated system is not followed. For example, related cases can be combined if deemed necessary.
When the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office’s Special Investigation Panel charged Chen with corruption on Dec. 12, the court should have prepared for a possible combining of cases. If there had been disagreements between the presiding judges, they could have held a meeting to decide whether or not to combine cases. They could also have taken the initiative to make a public announcement explaining the reasoning behind any decision.
Sadly, the court missed a golden opportunity to handle the issue in this way on the day that Chen was charged. No meeting was held to discuss combining cases until 10 days later. When the meeting was eventually held, the court reversed its original decision — and placed itself in a difficult position.
In light of present circumstances, it is difficult for the judiciary to maintain an objective and neutral appearance. With the sudden change of a presiding judge, it now seems impossible for the judiciary to avoid damage to its reputation.
Judicial credibility is accumulated incrementally. If outsiders are given room to meddle in the issue of whether cases should be combined, then I fear a judicial nightmare will follow.
The judicial authorities should not stay silent. They should, at the least, review the causes of the current crisis and provide a public account of the situation if any misconduct has occurred.
Lin Feng-cheng is president of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS