Prosecutors in Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) corruption case filed a request for his detention on suspicion of accepting bribes and profiteering. The Taipei District Court judge rejected the request for a number of reasons.
First, Ko is not a member of the Taipei Urban Planning Commission. Second, he lacks relevant expertise. Third, he trusted the majority resolution and the opinions of former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng (彭振聲). Fourth, although increasing the floor-area-ratio (FAR) of the Core Pacific City project was illegal, there is space for reasonable interpretation.
The judge concluded that the evidence was insufficient to confirm whether Ko knew his actions were illegal and that the likelihood of conviction was not high, and ruled to release him without bail. However, the Taipei City District Court failed to elaborate on whether Ko contravened his duties by accepting bribes. That headache would be left for the High Court to handle on appeal.
According to the Taiwan High Administrative Court’s July 2020 decision, the Core Pacific City project’s FAR of 560 percent was a one-time guarantee, and the Core Pacific City’s appeal was rejected. This administrative court decision, a win for the Taipei City Government, restricted the project’s FAR to 560 percent. It was not a piece of scrap paper. Can the Taipei mayor just give away an additional 20 percent FAR with his signature? On what legal basis is that allowed? Did Ko really not understand the illegality of his actions? Can he truly claim that he was unaware of the existence of such an important verdict? For the winner of a case to pay reparations to the losing party — in the form of a 20 percent increase in FAR — without any form of benefit or repayment is just absurd. Is a battle where the winner pays the loser one worth fighting? This is just common sense; it does not require any expertise.
The judge indicated that the Taipei City Government’s 2021 decision to increase the project’s FAR by 20 percent was illegal, but it failed to review this key administrative court ruling. If he had, perhaps there would have been a different outcome.
The Court Organization Act (法院組織法) only stipulates the number of judges required after indictment, but it does not outline how many judges should rule on pre-indictment detention hearings. In practice, all court administrative regulations stipulate that one judge makes an independent ruling. This is extremely dangerous and irresponsible because the details of corruption cases are often quite complex and not immediately made apparent.
Even after years and years of a trial, a judge might not necessarily make an accurate decision. Judges in detention hearings are not superhuman.
How could they be expected to finish reading more than 1,000 pages of documents, completely digest their contents, and come up with the references for a well-backed decision in just a few hours? Who would believe such extraordinary abilities?
Therefore, judicial reform should start by addressing institutional flaws. Regulations should be amended to replace the single-judge system. Detention hearings of high-profile criminal cases should have three judges that work collaboratively and make a joint decision. This would help avoid unnecessary detentions and reduce the longstanding problem of a legal system with ever-changing phases and inconsistent interpretations. Otherwise, deciding whether to detain someone would continue to resemble a game of table tennis (take the case of former vice premier Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦), which bounced back and forth three times). How else would the judicial system earn the public’s trust?
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS