President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has often spoken of his respect for the judiciary, pledged to never interfere in individual cases and lectured government officials on acting in accordance with the law. However, the recent brouhaha over former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) sudden transfer from Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) in Taipei to a prison hospital in Greater Taichung suggests otherwise.
Chen, serving a 20-year jail sentence for corruption, has been diagnosed with severe depression, sleep apnea, non-typical Parkinson’s disease, speech disorder and mild cerebral atrophy. Yet, despite a professional evaluation by Chou Yuan-hua (周元華), Chen’s attending physician at TVGH, who said the former president should be allowed to convalesce at home or at a hospital closer to home where he can benefit from family support, the Ministry of Justice early on Friday morning abruptly moved Chen to Taichung Prison’s Pei Teh Hospital without notifying Chen’s family.
Granted, the matter is within the ministry’s mandate, but can judicial authorities truly say they had acted in accordance with the law as Ma has often instructed them to do so?
When it comes to providing medical treatment to prisoners, the Prison Act (監獄行刑法) states that the ministry has the option of applying medical treatment in prison, transferring the patient to a prison hospital or receiving treatment outside prison and granting medical parole — all of which are aimed at the speedy recovery of the patient.
Taking into account that the first clause in Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) states that the conduct and methods adopted by a government agency, in a bid to guarantee people’s rights and enhance administrative efficiency, as well as public trust in the government, “should be helpful in achieving the purpose,” one has to wonder whether relocating Chen to a prison hospital is the best way to achieve the purpose of treating Chen.
After all, TVGH clearly suggested in its report that convalescence at home or at a hospital closer to home that allows Chen to benefit from family support is better suited to treating Chen’s ailments. However, by sending Chen to a prison hospital, judicial authorities have not only blatantly disregarded the hospital’s professional assessment, but may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫), in response to condemnation by angry pan-green lawmakers over Chen’s sudden transfer, reminded the public that “Chen is not only a patient, but also an inmate.”
Indeed, “do the crime, do the time” and Chen, convicted of corruption, should serve time in accordance with the law.
However, Chen’s right to medical care should not be neglected just because he is a prisoner. As the first clause of Article 10 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
Quick to come to the ministry’s defense, Ma said that Chen has already been accorded special treatment, as he will have access to an 800m2 special convalescence area and be allowed unlimited visits by family members.
That may be true, but the issue is not how much space Chen is given to walk around, rather, it is the professional medical care and environment that can best help him recover.
As Chen’s physical and mental state continues to deteriorate, prompting concern among human rights activists, one can only hope that the Ma government realizes that the sanctity of life — including that of a prisoner — is no laughing matter.
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