It has been almost 40 years since I obtained my license to practice law. I have fought for democracy and human rights for half my life. The recent conduct of Taiwan’s prosecutors and courts has me deeply worried.
The purpose of the judiciary is to protect human rights and decide what is right and what is wrong, thus serving as the last line of defense for social justice. The process and outcome of a trial should not only convince the parties involved, but also be acceptable to society at large.
The Criminal Code (刑法) clearly details all penalties, while the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) and the Court Organic Act (法院組織法) comprehensively state how prosecutions and trials should proceed. A verdict may be rendered invalid by a tiny procedural flaw. This is called “procedural justice.” Even the worst criminals can only be declared guilty in accordance with strict legal procedures; otherwise, illegal punishment, revenge or trials with predetermined outcomes will prevail.
Take for example some recent controversial cases. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Tainan City Councilor Wang Ting-yu (王定宇) was — in just eight days — indicted for allegedly mobbing a Chinese official, with prosecutors recommending a relatively heavy 14-month jail sentence. In cases involving the alleged misuse of special allowances for government officials, both the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) reported hundreds of officials, but to this day, only five former ministers who are seen as being close to former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) have been indicted, and after five months, courts have yet to begin trial proceedings.
In one case, DPP Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) was originally released on bail but the decision was overruled after repeated appeals by prosecutors. In another, DPP Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) was detained without a summons, and was only released without bail after staging a hunger strike. Finally, former vice premier Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) was detained for 50 days but the court was in session only three times during that period. All these cases have led to serious questions about double standards in investigative and legal applications and show the KMT government’s disregard for human rights.
As for the alleged corruption cases involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) released Chen without bail, but the court decided to combine his cases with the ongoing investigation into Chen’s handling of his state affairs fund, a case presided over by Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓). This effectively transferred the power to decide whether to detain the former president to Tsai. Regardless of Tsai’s decision, the move has damaged the credibility of the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Taipei District Court.
Since the court originally granted the prosecutors’ request to detain Chen for two months — a period that can be extended once, thus giving prosecutors four months — they had ample time to look into the matter thoroughly. Instead the SIP rushed to indict Chen in less than a month and filed the cases in court. After the court released him without bail, prosecutors filed repeated appeals to have the release revoked. This haste reminds us of the joint press conference in mid-September when all eight SIP prosecutors pledged to resign if they failed to complete the investigation by the end of last year.
In terms of case assignment, there is a principle of “court-appointed judges” aimed at avoiding manipulation of judges or verdicts by the judicial authorities. However, the Taipei District Court has not adhered to this principle, leaving much room for speculation and once again damaging judicial credibility. For example, if the court believes that the corruption cases against Chen should be combined with the earlier state affairs fund case, why did it submit them as new and separate cases in the first place? And since Chou was put in charge of the new case by lot, why were they combined with the ongoing state affairs fund case only after Chou twice released Chen without bail? The timing of the decision to combine the cases would suggest that it was done just to change judges.
Moreover, the court did not follow the traditional method in combining cases that has been practiced for years, as it combined the four corruption cases with 14 defendants with the previous case with only four defendants.
Adding to our concern is the fact that Chou’s court is a specialized court set up especially for major financial crimes, and not a regular court.
These abnormal measures have destroyed the court’s credibility. This begs the question of how convincing a future verdict can be.
Su Tseng-chang is a former premier.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS