It is commonplace for judicial officers to address social doubts over their rulings and charges that they are “dinosaur judges” by saying that members of the public think that way only because they neither participated in the proceedings nor reviewed relevant documents. The food safety case involving Ting Hsin International Group (頂新集團) is a case in point. After reading the Nov. 27 ruling on Ting Hsin, it is difficult not to feel alarmed that the judiciary is teetering on the brink of collapse.
The 180,000-word ruling references legal theory and arguments to the extent that it almost reads like a doctoral dissertation, seemingly to put on display the hard work of the judges and the pressure that they were under.
The ruling places considerable emphasis on the principle of evidentiary adjudication and the presumption of innocence, among other criminal law principles. Perhaps it shows that the judges have taken the interests of the accused to heart, but it also implies that in most other criminal cases, presumption of guilt is upheld instead. The public cannot help but wonder if the fundamental protection of the right of the accused is only limited to the rich and does not apply to everyone else.
The ruling is not only lengthy, but also filled with difficult and dry language. Perhaps even professors of criminal law would find it incomprehensible. Since the text is hard to understand, the grounds for Ting Hsin’s acquittal are bound to be interpreted in many different ways, or understood in bits and pieces, and then interpreted in fragments.
For instance, most of the public believe that Ting Hsin was found not guilty largely because the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (食品安全衛生管理法) only regulates cooking oil — the goods — not raw oil, the raw material. This has led some to joke that refined dog shit might also be considered edible. Whether this aptly describes the ruling is difficult to ascertain. In particular, Article 3 of the food safety act includes “raw materials” in its definition of “foods.” To say that this act does not apply to raw oil contradicts the law.
Some lawmakers have suggested that the food safety act be revised by including raw oil in the regulation. This raises the question if doing so would mean the legislature acknowledges that the current act does not, in fact, regulate raw oil.
If so, during a second trial, however much evidence prosecutors provide to prove the substandard quality of the raw oil, the judges would have to acquit the accused on the grounds that there is no crime and no punishment based on the principle that laws are not retroactive.
If Ting Hsin is found not guilty in the first and second trials, the Speedy Criminal Trials Act (刑事妥速審判法) stipulates that prosecutors cannot appeal the verdict further, which will put an end to the case.
Consequently, former Ting Hsin International Group executive Wei Ying-chun (魏應充) and the other defendants, who were detained previously, would be entitled to receive compensation paid for by taxpayers. Is it not absurd?
The court should not base its authority on impractical theories and incomprehensible wording. It should serve justice for all, not just a handful of privileged individuals, so that the public can put their faith in it.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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