It has become apparent to a growing number of the public that Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) might be unfit for her position given her track record of inappropriate remarks many deem a violation of judicial independence.
Luo replaced Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) in September last year after he was forced to resign, allegedly taking the role of the prosecution in allegations over improper lobbying involving Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平). When appointed, Luo was praised by the Executive Yuan for her “uprightness, proactiveness and dedication to promoting human rights,” adding that Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) was also confident Luo would be able to defend judicial independence.
Perhaps the premier and the Executive Yuan hold a very different definition from the public’s on what constitutes defending judicial independence and civil rights, because what has been pouring out from Luo’s mouth has been anything but.
Many recall that shortly after assuming her post, there was a controversial case in which then-prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) then head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID), was accused of abusing authority and wiretapping members of the Legislative Yuan. Luo spoke in apparent defense of Huang several times. For example, before the ministry’s special investigation panel even began its probe, Luo was quick to say that the SID’s wiretaps on the legislature were “unintentional” and that “Huang had no subjective intent [to place the legislature’s switchboard under surveillance.]” As it turned out, the panel’s report reached a similar conclusion — a finding that even Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers deemed “suspicious.”
Under an independent judiciary only the court has the authority to decide whether Huang committed misconduct and leaked classified information of an ongoing investigation to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). Luo’s various comments in favor of her subordinate Huang were quite inappropriate.
With the Sunflower movement, Luo is at it again — openly commenting on the students’ behavior, an action indicative of an attempt to guide prosecutors’ hands in their investigation of the students’ occupation of the Legislative Yuan. On Tuesday, Luo dismissed the student protesters’ claim that they were participating in civil disobedience when they broke into the legislature, saying that a prerequisite for carrying out civil disobedience is that it cannot be an act of open defiance against the law. Luo added that instigators of civil disobedience around the world have admitted to breaking the law of their countries and submitted to legal punishment.
If Luo only knew how to keep her mouth shut.
Article 63 of the Organic Act of Courts (法院組織法) clearly stipulates that it is the prosecutor-general who has authority over the prosecutors’ offices and the power to delegate to and monitor them. The minister of justice, on the other hand, only has the power of administrative oversight over the prosecutorial system and has no jurisdiction over specific cases.
Whether the protesters’ action constituted civil disobedience is not an issue that should concern Luo. Judges, after all, are making the decision, not to mention that her definition of civil disobedience is contradictory to what is being taught to the nation’s high-school freshmen in their civics education textbooks.
Luo is a graduate of National Taiwan University’s College of Law and has a master’s in criminal justice from the University of Albany, State University of New York. She has not served as a judge or a prosecutor. She is advised to revisit her law or high-school civics education textbooks, or watch the award-winning film Mandela: A Long Walk to Freedom. Doing so she might reacquaint herself with Thoreau’s idea of civil disobedience as well as strengthen her capacity in jurisprudence, an area in which she apparently has a lot of room for improvement.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS