The Special Investigation Division (SID) has accused Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of calling former minister of justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) and “lobbying” him. The news sent shockwaves through the country and the nation’s political world reeled.
Immediately, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced his shock and horror at the allegations and the next day he issued a public statement ordering Wang to return immediately from his trip abroad to explain himself.
Shortly after, the Presidential Office called a press conference in which Ma spoke — with rarely heard gravity — about how Taiwan was on a dangerous course, and how that day was “the most shameful day in the development of democracy and the rule of law in Taiwan.”
He roundly criticized his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) colleague Wang, saying: “Each one of us needs to ask ourselves, if this is not lobbying, then what is? If powerful people can lobby and influence the judiciary, how can ordinary people be assured of judicial justice?”
People are incensed when powerful figures try to influence the judiciary. However, the case against Wang is based on inferences made from conversations obtained through surveillance and hasty conclusions. The case will be viewed differently in the political realm than in a legal setting.
If Ma believes Wang’s telephone conversations constitute improper lobbying, perhaps he is being hypocritical.
On Nov. 5, 2010, Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) declared former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) not guilty of the charges against him in connection with the second financial reform.
Two days later, Ma — in his capacity as president — openly discussed the case, criticizing the not-guilty verdict in the strongest of terms. He said: “The judiciary should be independent, but it cannot be isolated, neither can it shy away from the reasonable expectations that the public has of it.”
On Nov. 9, he held a banquet at the Presidential Office, to which he invited the premier, the vice premier, the legislative speaker, the deputy speaker, the president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan, the secretaries-general of those institutions, the minister of justice and the prosecutor-general. During the dinner he said: “Respecting the law does not equate to ignoring the disappointment and anger the general public feels about the judges that deliver verdicts that fail to meet the reasonable expectations the people have of them. I have heard what people have had to say, and I have taken note.”
On that occasion Ma announced that the SID had already decided to appeal the verdict on the second financial reform case.
Then on Nov. 11, the Supreme Court convicted Chen — in a move unprecedented for such a complex and highly contentious case — sending the former president, who had already been detained for a long time, to jail.
Perhaps this is what Ma meant when he talked of meeting the public’s reasonable expectations. Shockingly, the court did not announce its verdict in full until a month later.
Is this sequence of events an example of “powerful people” lobbying and influencing the judiciary? Does Ma think that inviting senior members of the judiciary to a dinner and commenting on individual cases could be considered “political guidance”? Were these actions flagrant lobbying of the Supreme Court in order to see his political enemy put behind bars?
Chen Chih-chung is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and has a master’s in law from New York University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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