Wednesday, January 21, 2009

轉載: 第三封公開信(侵蝕中的司法) Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3 (部分翻譯,updated on 1/21 USA time)

轉載: 第三封公開信(侵蝕中的司法) Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3 (部分翻譯)
老實說, 這些老外(美國,歐洲與澳洲學者)的動作還真快. 現在已經是第三封公開信了. 這次對象是馬先生,而不是王清峰.

今天晚上的課,下課已經累了. 先貼原文,要是有空再補上其他的翻譯. 現在先翻譯/摘要部分如下.

Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3

Wednesday, Jan 21, 2009, Page 8
DEAR PRESIDENT MAWe the undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, consider ourselves long-time supporters of a democratic Taiwan. We write to express our concern regarding the erosion of the judicial system in Taiwan during the past few months.

On two previous occasions we have publicly expressed our concerns to Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), but the minister’s responses are troubling in their persistent failure to acknowledge that there even is a problem, and in their attitude of denial that the judicial process is flawed and partial. We trust that our raising our concerns with you as president will be treated as advice from international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation.

(在過去我們前後兩次對法務部長王清峰提出我們的憂慮, 但是王部長堅持拒絕問題所在,也拒絕承認台灣司法程序有瑕疵且不公正. 基於此,也基於對台灣民主的關心,我們發表這封公開信, 希望馬總統你以國際學者關心台灣未來的自由與民主的態度,來看待這封公開信) [簡單講, 因為部長死不認錯且一錯在錯,才會因此將受信者提高到總統的層級啦!]

First we may mention the fact that your administration has not yet acted upon recommendations — made both by Freedom House and Amnesty International — to conduct an independent inquiry into the events surrounding the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), and in particular the police behavior and infringements on basic freedoms. The establishment of a scrupulously neutral commission is essential if there is to be a fair and objective conclusion on the disturbances that occurred during the Chen Yunlin visit.


Second, we are concerned about the legal proceedings in the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The switch of the case from a three-panel court that released him on his own cognizance on Dec. 13 to a court that subsequently re-incarcerated him on Dec. 25 — both Christmas Day and Constitution Day — seems to have resulted from political pressure from KMT members of the Legislative Yuan. In his commentary in the South China Morning Post of Jan. 8, 2009, professor Jerome Cohen presented details of such political interference in the judicial system, while The Associated Press on Jan. 4 also gave incisive insights in the process that took place.

(第二:我們關心陳水扁案件的法律程序. 從重新覉押與併案等看來都是遭受到國民黨立法委員施壓的結果. 孔傑榮曾經對此發表評論並刊載在今年一月八日南華早報裡)

Third, we are deeply concerned by the widespread pattern of leaks to the media regarding ongoing cases — leaks which because of their content and nature can only have come from the prosecutors’ offices. As was reported by The Associated Press on Jan. 4, 2009, prominent observers in Taiwan such as professor Wang Yeh-lih of National Taiwan University charge that these leaks come from prosecutors who “consistently violated the principle of guarding the details of investigations during the Chen case.”


This pattern of behavior displays a distinct bias in the judicial system and a disregard for fair and impartial processes.The lack of attention to professional judicial standards reached a new low with the skit by several prosecutors who satirized those whom they are prosecuting. We are disturbed by Minister Wang’s defending this as “just for fun.”

(從司法節的鬧劇演員包含數位審判陳水扁案的檢察官看出, 司法人員缺乏專業標準的情況來到新低點, 而王部長卻以"那只是好玩"一語輕描淡寫帶過)

Press agencies quote the minister as saying: “It was just a play to help everybody relax. There’s no reason to take it too seriously.”

In our view the actions by the prosecutors and the comment by Minister Wang display a lack of judicial professionalism and political neutrality.


We reiterate that any cases of alleged corruption must be investigated, and that if the defendants are found guilty in a scrupulously impartial process, they should receive just punishment after trial. We thus emphasize that the political neutrality of the judicial system is a fundamental element in a democracy. The examples mentioned above indicate that the investigative process has been conducted and sensationalized to the extent that both the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence have been seriously jeopardized. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.

(我們要強調司法體系中的政治中立是民主的一個基本元素. 上述的例子顯示調查過程不但偏頗沒有確保公正審判,而且也嚴重斲傷無罪推論的基本假設. 司法對於台灣強化民主與確保人權來講很重要)

In addition to the harm done to the personas of those accused, the international image of Taiwan has suffered. A president of a country bears political responsibility for the conduct of his subordinates’ actions, and we therefore urge immediate and decisive action to correct the severe flaws in the process that are staining the national honor, perhaps irreparably.

(除了上述例子的相關人士受到傷害外, 也影響台灣的國際形象. 請馬總統好好看管部署,立即糾正這嚴重的錯誤啦!) [所以說這才就做丟臉丟到國際上嘛!]

Taiwan’s judicial system must be not only above suspicion but even above the appearance of suspicion of partiality and political bias. We appeal to you, Mr President, to restore the credibility of the judicial system in Taiwan and ensure that your government and its judiciary and parliamentary institutions safeguard the full democracy, human rights and freedom of expression, for which the Taiwanese people have worked so hard during the past two decades.


Respectfully yours,

Nat Bellocchi, former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan

Coen Blaauw Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DCStéphane CorcuffAssociate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon,

France Gordon G. Changauthor, “The ComingCollapse of China”David Curtis WrightAssociate Professor of History, University of Calgary

June Teufel DreyerProfessor of Political Science, University of Miami,

FloridaEdward FriedmanProfessor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin,

Madison Mark HarrisonSenior Lecturer, Head of the Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

Bruce JacobsProfessor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Richard C. KaganProfessor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St Paul Minnesota. Author, “Taiwan’s Statesman,

Lee Teng-hui and Democracy in Asia” and other works on Taiwan

Jerome F. KeatingAssociate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, “Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan’s complex history” and other works on Taiwan’s history Hon.

David Kilgourformer Member Parliament and Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, CanadaVictor H. MairProfessor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania

Donald RodgersAssociate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas

Terence RussellProfessor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba, Canada

Christian SchaffererAssociate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, Chair Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, Editor “Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia”

Michael StaintonYork Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada

Peter TagueProfessor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington DC John J. Tkacik Jrformer Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC

Arthur WaldronLauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

Vincent Wei-cheng Wang Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia

Gerrit van der WeesEditor Taiwan Communique, Washington DC

Stephen YatesPresident of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs

Terri GilesExecutive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los AngelesDaniel LynchAssociate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California



Monday, January 19, 2009

轉載: Mentor urges Taiwan's Ma to ensure trial fairness (孔傑榮促馬確保公正審判)

昨天在MSN上跟朋友聊天, 因為聊到洞穴奇案那本講法律的書而扯到扁案. 我說: "我猜,隨著扁案開審,孔傑榮近期又要有文章發表了. 這樣子我只要轉載就好了, 不用寫新文章. 哈哈". 朋友笑我懶惰也就罷了還先找好plan B了.

講完我就睡覺去了. 沒想到今早起來,因為放假(馬丁路德紀念日)不用上學就上網閑晃一下,發現孔傑榮真的有新文章了,而且還有中譯了. 台灣有國際觀的人真多, 好現象.

老實說,我對扁案的關心只在於程序正義的問題. 只要程序正義,審判公正,因此建立人民以及國際對台灣司法的信心, 那就是我希望看到的結果了! 阿扁有最無罪根本對我來講一點都不重要啊! 我甚至對於DPP有些人到現在還在談要不要和扁切割覺得很厭煩, 甚至覺得無聊. 也對因為最近政府的一些作為每每引起國際批評(從人權,司法到民主自由等)覺得很尷尬, 因為美國同學回過頭來笑我說, 你引以為傲的台灣民主與自由,也不過如此而已(尤其這篇,司法竟然被譏為馬戲團,真是太尷尬了).

順便再提一次,那本洞穴奇案真的很棒, 希望今天有機會看完(不過看完不表示就寫完感想啦).


Mentor urges Taiwan's Ma to ensure trial fairness, AP, Published: January 17, 2009 (or here)

TAIPEI, Taiwan: The Harvard Law School mentor of Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou said Saturday that his former student needs to urgently act to prevent an "increasingly disturbing circus atmosphere" from prejudicing his predecessor's right to a fair trial.


Jerome Cohen's comments to The Associated Press follow last week's biting skit that mocked former President Chen Shui-bian, performed by prosecutors at a Taiwan "Law Day" dinner attended by Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng, judges, and other leading lights of the island's legal community.

孔傑榮(Jerome Cohen)是針對上週台灣「司法節」一場晚會中,由檢察官演出嘲弄前總統陳水扁的刻薄短劇向美聯社發表意見。參加晚會的包括司法部長王清峰、法官、及其他台灣司法界的重要人物。

The skit made fun of Chen at the time of his arrest on graft charges in November, with a woman depicting him waving his manacled hands in the air and complaining about police brutality and judicial persecution.


At least one of the prosecutors appearing in the skit is involved in the continuing investigation of Chen.

參加短劇演出的檢察官中至少有一位仍在繼續調查陳水扁。 (按:瓜田李下,這應該要避嫌,不要參加演出比較好吧?)

Chen goes on trial Monday on charges of money laundering, bribery and looting a special presidential fund. While admitting his family wired more than $20 million to overseas bank accounts under its control, he says the money was unused campaign contributions that under Taiwanese law are his to deal with freely.


Cohen, now a law professor at New York University, is one of the world's foremost experts on legal systems in Taiwan and China. He mentored Ma three decades ago at Harvard and they remain close. They last met in the presidential office in Taipei on Dec. 16.

孔傑榮,目前是哈佛大學法學教授,是全球頂尖的台灣與中國法律體系專家。他三十年前曾經擔任馬英九在哈佛大學的指導教授,兩人一直保持親近的關係。他們最近一次會面是 12 月 16 日在台北總統府。

In a telephone interview with the AP, Cohen called performing the skit "unthinkable."


"It is as if there are people trying to repudiate all the progress that Taiwan has made over the past 15 years," he said, referring to the island's gradual transition from dictatorship to multiparty democracy.


Cohen said Ma should move swiftly to force Justice Minister Wang to clarify remarks she made in defense of the skit, including her characterization that it was, "just a little performance reflecting on current affairs."


"If he doesn't get this, who in Taiwan can get it?" he said.

Presidential spokesman Wang Yu-chi said Ma would not intervene with the justice minister on Chen's trial.


"President Ma Ying-jeou's stand is that he respects the judiciary and he does not interfere with individual cases," he said. "At the same time he hopes that the judiciary will behave in a way that does not induce improper political reactions on the part of the public."


There is "an increasingly disturbing circus atmosphere" surrounding the Chen trial, Cohen said, that includes not only the mounting of the skit, but also a decision by a Taipei court to reverse itself and order Chen jailed pending his trial.


Chen was originally locked up for 32 days to allow prosecutors to build their case against him, then ordered freed on his own recognizance by the court. However, he was returned to jail on Dec. 29 after a new panel of judges heard the prosecutors' second appeal against him.

陳水扁最早被關了 32 天,讓檢察官得以完成對他起訴,然後法院下令具結釋放。然而,12 月 29 日新的法官團在審理檢察官第二次上訴後他又再次入獄.

Cohen said Ma's handling of the Chen case revealed an apparent choice to placate the extremist wing of his ruling Nationalist Party rather than reaching out to Taiwan's broad political middle.


"He's acting like (President George W.) Bush in catering to the most right wing conservative elements," he said.


Presidential spokesman Wang rejected that characterization.

"(Ma's) hands-off policy has irritated some party members who hoped he could deal with the Chen case more aggressively," he said. "So it is incorrect to say that President Ma is trying to placate some party members with the way he is treating the Chen case."



Tuesday, January 13, 2009

關於語言/語文的雜感 (last update:10/19/2010)

我一向主張語言必須文字化才可以傳承,而且文字最好必須具備文義, 因為拼音文字本身只有聲音(只是發音符號),不具文義的話比具有意義的文字低了一等. 舉例而言, 韓文就只是發音符號, 在我的偏見裡就比日文的五十音低了一等, 因為後者除了發音外的功能也具備文義.

我的這種偏見下, 我偏好全用漢字的台文, 對於那些漢羅夾雜的台文, 心裡總有些排斥而不能全心接受. 我的這種偏見在最近看到一篇文章之後有了新的省思. 這篇討論地名的文章提到:


文中舉例如下: " 屏東縣的 Sandimor,清時根據鶴佬話寫成「山豬毛」。從字面上來看,很容易便可對其意義做出解釋:當地大概盛產山豬毛吧?不過到了戰後,這個地名根據華語寫成「三地門」。不知道這個地名曾寫成山豬毛的人,仍可輕易從字面尋求解釋:當地大概是進入三個地方的大門吧?有些人說不定還可以引經據典,「找出」究竟是哪三個地方呢!很不幸的,這個地名的意義與山豬毛或三地門的字面意義都無關,因為這是一個排灣語地名。想要瞭解這個地名的真實意義,就得回到這個聲音在排灣語中的意義。"

我想到的另一個例子, 是我在新加坡的經驗. 華人是新加坡最大的族群, 但各有不同"母語",例如福建話(閩南話),潮州話,廣東話,客家話等, 而這些,反映在華人的姓氏裡. 也因此, 在台灣因為用普通話拼為Chen的陳, 在新家坡多為Tan(閩),或是Chan(粵). 而一樣拼為Ng的,則有可能是姓黃的(閩),也有可能是姓吳的(客). 或是拼為Wong(粵)的可能和拼為Ng(閩)的其實同樣姓黃.

和新加坡一樣, 台灣是一個多民族也因此多語言的社會, 這種情形下,各種語言的保存特別困難. 地名來源的多元化只是一個例子. 台語裡雖然與閩南語大部分相通[1],但是許多用詞卻深受日語與其他語言影響, 也因此台語文字化的同時,聽聲辨義的步驟不能少,否則寫出來的文字也可能出現與原意相左的情形, 要不就用羅馬拼音讓閱讀者自己聽聲辨義一番吧!

[1]也因此對Singlish (新加坡式英文)裡一些辭,例如 kiasu (發成台語的"怕輸")有了更進一步的看法

看人家的廣東話廣東文,想想自己的台語台文 ;
the fate of language
10/19/2010 updated:

Friday, January 9, 2009

轉載: Chen Judges Bungle Their Chance 經手陳水扁案法官錯失展現台灣司法公正透明之機會(updated)


由於中時已有中文版, 我就不翻譯了. 感想後補
Chen Judges Bungle Their Chance
Jerome A. Cohen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies
January 8, 2009South China Morning Post

When analysing the experience of the US Supreme Court, the late Charles Evans Hughes (chief justice 1930-39) commented: "The gravest wounds are self-inflicted." Taiwan's courts should reflect on that wisdom. The prosecution of former president Chen Shui-bian has not even come to trial. Yet his judges have already bungled the historic opportunity Chen's case presents for the judiciary to confirm its independence, impartiality and competence.

The vibrant democracy for which so many in Taiwan have struggled is in trouble. Corruption threatens the integrity of the political system. This cancer cannot be controlled without a credible, fair and transparent judicial system to enforce the law.

Following Chen's November 11 arrest, despite the deep political divisions and partisan suspicions of Taiwanese society, the prosecution's detailed allegations of massive corruption by Chen, his family and colleagues had prepared the public to accept the prospect of their guilt and punishment.

Their convictions after proceedings perceived to be fair would vindicate the values of clean government, deter potential wrongdoers and heighten confidence in courts that began to free themselves from decades of authoritarian Kuomintang government fewer than 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, recent court proceedings have mocked that promise. Unless some unexpected, bold action restores public confidence, convictions of Chen and his associates will enhance popular cynicism and deny the courts the broad support required by any successful judiciary.
What happened? Chinese have traditionally emphasised substantive criminal law - guilt or innocence - rather than procedure.

Yet, recent events, reflecting Taiwan's gradual transition from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, focused attention on two related sets of criminal process issues: pre-trial detention and the merger of separate prosecutions.

The battle between Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun's three-judge panel - which twice took the unusual step of ordering Chen's release without bail, pending trial - and Taiwan's High Court - which twice reversed that decision - only ended when the case against the Chen group, originally assigned by lot to Judge Chou's panel, was merged into the earlier prosecution of Chen's wife for embezzling special state funds. That case is being handled by Judge Tsai Shou-hsun's panel.

The transfer made it possible for Judge Tsai to preside over Chen's third post-indictment detention hearing. His panel ordered Chen's return to detention, in a decision that contradicted the spirit of the Council of Grand Justices' Interpretation No653, issued several days earlier. The interpretation eloquently emphasised that the criminally accused should only be detained when no other measures suffice. Although this time Chen is not being handcuffed and held incommunicado, as he was for 32 days before indictment, any conversations with visiting family and even his lawyers can be monitored and used as evidence against him, and them!

Detained defendants are obviously hampered in preparing their defence in other ways, such as by discussing the case with co-defendants and witnesses, which was one of the prosecution's two main fears if Chen remained free pending trial. The other is that, if released, Chen might flee Taiwan. Judge Tsai could have released Chen under high bail and residential restrictions that made flight unlikely. Chen's incentive to flee will increase if he is convicted at trial. Does this mean he will continue to be detained if he appeals against any conviction? This would mean incarceration for years before final conviction.

At what point does the presumption of innocence become meaningless and pre-conviction detention morph into punishment for a crime not finally proved?

The dilemmas of a defendant's detention before final conviction plague every country. More distinctive to Taiwan are the unresolved mysteries surrounding the recent merger of the Chen group's case into the embezzlement case brought against his wife in 2006 - a time when Chen, although involved, still enjoyed presidential immunity from prosecution.

If such a merger was necessary, why was it not effected when the indictment against the Chen group was issued? Instead, the district court decided that the new indictment, which featured money-laundering and other complex charges - plus the earlier embezzlement charge against Chen - should be assigned to a separate judicial panel by lottery.

The lottery was limited to the few panels deemed more specialised than Judge Tsai's for dealing with complex financial transactions. How, then, can the court justify the subsequent assignment to Judge Tsai? Can the random assignment of cases essential to judicial neutrality be so easily circumvented?

According to the court's official press releases, assignment to Judge Tsai by the court's merger review panel followed court rules. Yet that review process could only be initiated by request of the judge in charge of the later case. Why did Judge Chou make that request? Was he pressured to do so? Why did the review panel not accept his proposal to transfer to Judge Tsai only that part of the group indictment relating to the embezzlement case against Chen and his wife, leaving the more complex accusations to Judge Chou's panel, as the court originally intended? Why did the review panel consist of merely five of the relevant criminal division chiefs? Why did the merger issue only become salient after the second time Judge Chou ordered Chen's release? Was this entire non-transparent process the court's response to angry public criticism of Judge Chou? Did any politician intimidate the court with secret threats?

Answers to such questions will eventually emerge. More immediately, is there any way to guarantee the Chen group and the public a judicial process that will have both the appearance and the reality of justice? Why doesn't Judge Tsai, who reportedly did not want to take on the new case, withdraw from handling all but the earlier embezzlement charges against the Chens? Then the district court can return to its original intent and again select by lot a judicial panel of financial specialists to deal with the complex accusations of the new case.

The new panel might even approve another application for Chen's release pending trial, with high bail and strict residential restrictions. Then both trials could proceed with broad public support. Justice, as the saying goes, must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. That is the price of judicial legitimacy.

Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

美國前聯邦首席大法官查爾斯.休斯(Charles Evans Hughes)在分析美國聯邦最高法院的經驗時曾言道:「(最高法院)最重大的傷害均是自我招致的。」台灣的法院應省思此句充滿智慧的經驗談。雖然對陳水扁前總統的追訴法院尚未開庭審理,但經手本案的法官們已然貽誤了陳案所提供的歷史良機去證明司法的獨立、公正與能力。

可惜的是,近來之司法程序進行著實令人對此等期望落空。除非法院能有一些出人意表的英勇舉措來回復其公信力,對陳以及其他涉案人的定罪將只會招致更多的公開批判嘲諷,使法院無法取得成功司法所必需的廣泛支持。此乃因中國傳統上強調刑事法的實體即有罪無罪的判定而非程序。然而,近來相關的事件發展卻令人聚焦於兩個相關聯之刑事程序爭議:審前羈押與公訴審理之合併,此等爭議亦反映出台灣的刑事訴訟程序制度正逐漸由職權進行主義(inquisitorial system)轉向當事人進行主義(adversarial system)。
根據台北地院的官方新聞稿,將後案之審理合併予蔡庭長審理之前案乃是刑事庭庭長會議依照台北地方法院刑事庭分案要點召開刑事庭案件審核小組決議的結論。然而,依該要點第十條規定,簽請審核小組決定的主動權在後案的承辦法官。周庭長為何為該請求?是否有何壓力迫使其為此請求?為何審核小組未接受其僅將後案中國務機要費相關部分移轉合併於蔡庭長的前案審理,而將後案中其餘較複雜的部分如法院原先之決定般由其所屬金融專庭審理的最初提議?為何審核小組僅由五位刑庭庭長組成?為何合併的議題在周庭長第二次釋放陳後才浮現?此等不透明的程序是否為該法院針對部分媒體以及國民黨立委強烈批判之回應?有無政治人物脅迫該法院對案件為如此安排? [1]
此等問題之答案早晚會變明朗。相較之下,目前比較迫切的問題應是:有無其他方式保證給陳案被告以及社會大眾一個兼具形式與實質正義的司法程序?如果蔡庭長如媒體所報導般原先並無意承接後案的審理,其何不退出後案中與國務機要費案無關起訴之審理?如此,則台北地院可以遂其原本之決定,並再次抽籤決定由一個金融專庭來審理後案中較為複雜的罪嫌。此新審理庭亦能再次審酌解除審理中羈押陳之聲請,如其決定釋放陳,應加以鉅額保釋金以及嚴格的限制住居之解押條件。 [1]

(孔傑榮Jerome A. Cohen,紐約大學法學院亞美法研究所共同主任,「外交關係協會」兼任資深研究員/紐約大學法學院亞美法研究所研究員宋名晰編譯)

註: 《星期專訪》黃瑞華︰司法若毀 台灣將有危險 裡也有類似的法律見解--

想要合併,就要找依據,因而找出第十條出來,說為了訴訟經濟、避免裁判歧異;至於兩個法官協商,是要兩個人都認為有必要才協商,但在當時狀況下,這件事是被壓迫的,不是周占春自己要的,他已開兩次庭,不是一分下來就說「我不要辦」,他沒有這樣做,據了解,他也訂了庭期,訂庭期就表示要審理,沒有認為合併審理的必要。 不排除周占春是在壓力下才簽出案件,這樣的過程就不公平、程序不正義。]

關於併案的問題, 在同一個專訪裡黃提到: "台大教授王兆鵬文章很值得參考,他提出三策,上策是蔡守訓停止審判,對其取得審判權的合法性聲請釋憲,中策是高等法院將案件移轉管轄,下策是蔡聲請迴避,案子重新分案。"
Taiwan’s Justice On Trial by Julian Baum(Posted December 5, 2008)
ROC Judiciary Blasted: Day of Democracy Commentary
Taiwan on trial(), ()

轉載: 回應美國對台灣司法憂慮的第二封公開信(updated)

針對2008年12月2日美國發表擔心台灣司法的第二封公開信,王清峰的回函. 我摘要/翻譯部分如下. 關於第二封美國公開信,請參考.

以下原文,轉載自Taipei Times.有朋友可幫忙翻譯者請留言或email給我.謝謝!

Thursday, Jan 08, 2009, Page 8
Response No. 2 on justice
In “Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2,” published in the Taipei Times on Dec. 2, the signatories again criticized Taiwan’s judicial procedures. Misunderstandings concerning Taiwan’s criminal procedure law are obvious here. Following its response published in the Taipei Times on Nov. 25, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of China has deemed it necessary to clarify these misunderstandings.

1. There is a difference between pretrial detention and preventive detention. “Pretrial detention” is employed as a means of preventing defendants, who are alleged to have committed felonies punishable with a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, from absconding and destroying evidence, but only where there are difficulties in prosecution, trial or the execution of a sentence. Such detentions are ordered by a judge or a panel of three judges when one of the aforementioned requirements is met. Should there exist any possibility of tampering with witnesses or evidence, detained suspects are barred from being interviewed and corresponding with anyone except their defense counsel(s). Open Letter No. 2 clearly shows a misunderstanding in that it suggested that such detentions might be politically motivated. (美國的第二封公開信清楚的顯示美國對於羈押陳水扁有明顯的誤解. 註:美國的第二封信懷疑羈押有政治動機, 王清峰的回函駁斥此為美國的誤解)

2. The correspondence issue: To avail detained suspects of legal assistance, those whose correspondence with the outside world is prohibited do retain the right to correspond with and be interviewed by their defense lawyers. Our laws protect the privilege of confidential communication between a lawyer and his client. But in the case where detention has been deemed necessary to avoid collusion with other defendants and witnesses, it is required that communications between the detained and his lawyer be recorded. This is an attempt to balance a suspect’s right to counsel with a need to prevent obstruction of justice. Once an investigation is completed, the documents, files and other evidence that prosecutors have collected will be submitted to the trial court, and the defense counsel may examine such evidence prior to the trial. (王清峰表示,爲了防止串共, 陳水扁與家人甚至辯護律師的對話仍可被監聽並援用為追訴其與其家人律師等涉案與違法之犯罪證據。)

3. On investigation confidentiality: With respect to the allegation that prosecutors leaked information to the press, former president Chen [Shui-bian, 陳水扁] was considered a suspect in a 2006 corruption case in which his wife was indicted as his accomplice. The aforementioned case had been publicly tried for some time and had been reported on often. The media might have access to sources other than the prosecutor’s office, including the defense counsel, defendants and even witnesses. (關於偵查不公開,王清峰認為媒體已經"審判"此案多時, 而且檢察官並非媒體討論此案唯一之來源,媒體也可以透過其他來源取得資料例如被告甚至證人的說辭)

4. On the lawyers’ code of ethics: In Open Letter No. 2, it was contended that a probe concerning Cheng Wen-lung [鄭文龍], the defense counsel for former president Chen, is confirmation of strong political bias in the judicial system. Please allow me to lay out the sequence of events to show that such a claim is not in keeping with the facts. The Taipei District Court ordered that Chen be detained on Nov. 11, and Mr Cheng communicated with the media about the situation on Nov. 12, issuing a 10-point statement on Chen’s behalf denouncing the “death of the judiciary.” Mr Cheng attempted to politicize the ongoing investigation and mislead the press, which may be considered to not only have the appearance of impropriety, but also to be a violation of the lawyers’ code of ethics. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice, the competent authority overseeing practicing lawyers, issued an official notice to the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office and the Taipei Bar Association to investigate whether any violation of ethics rules was made in conveying a detained suspect’s messages to the outside world. It is the duty of the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office and the Taipei Bar Association to decide whether or not to take action against Mr Cheng. (簡單講,王清峰認為司法單位調查鄭文龍是正當且必要的,因為王認為鄭的行為有違律師職業道德) [關於台灣司法單位對鄭文龍的"追殺",參考]

5. On “selective prosecution”: The signatories quoted the remarks of Professor Jerome Cohen and Mr Nigel Li [李念祖] to argue that prosecutors targeted only one particular political group, the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP]. Prosecutors are obligated to investigate any act of alleged corruption committed by government officials. To protect the innocent and prosecute the real criminals, public prosecutors are required by law to perform their duties independently and impartially without any interference from any sector. As for the prosecutors’ alleged prejudice against ex-government officials of the DPP, it is universally acknowledged that the crime of corruption is premised on its being committed by incumbent officials of the party in power. The opposition party enjoyed no such access; thus, there are no grounds for such investigations. Therefore, the allegation of prosecutorial bias against the DPP is entirely baseless. (選擇性辦案與起訴(只辦綠營人士)的指控是毫無根據的)

6. As for the allegation concerning my public comments on current investigations in Open Letter No. 2, I did not discuss the content of cases or give any specific instructions. The Ministry of Justice has released the text of my relevant statements. As Minister of Justice, I am fully aware of my boundaries and never step beyond them. (我--指王清峰並沒有"指導"任何案件........身為法務部長,我很清楚我的份際所在,也從未僭越)

I appreciate the signatories’ continued concern about our criminal justice system. All of our prosecutors, without exception, are under the supervision of the prosecutor-general. There can be no doubt that our public prosecutors endeavor to prosecute crimes and protect the innocent while respecting due process.


Minister of JusticeTaipei

Monday, January 5, 2009

2008 winter break

1) fondue experience
2) Christmas eve
3) travel in snowy days
4) food lab: trial and product of self-rising all-purpose powder

轉載: Critics blast democratic erosion under Taiwan's Ma (在馬政府下, 台灣民主被侵蝕)

我看了幾個常翻譯外文的網站皆無關於此文之翻譯, 因此把此文貼出來. 不過太忙了,暫時不翻譯. 雖然標題是台灣民主被侵蝕,我在另一個網誌卻歸類在人權司法觀測,因為內容講的是從檢察官抗告,阿扁被羈押的司法案件講起. 在看此文前,我先貼出兩個中文的新聞.一個其實剛好是感恩節期間我和一群朋友的對話內容(參考此文之回應),另一則是關於此外電的相關中文新聞.
2)扁更裁案 縱容國民黨人對付政敵/美學者:馬作為 讓人想起尼克森

以下為美聯社之原文: (文後有題外話一段) (完整中文翻譯)

Critics blast democratic erosion under Taiwan's Ma  
By PETER ENAVAssociated Press 2009-01-04 11:39 AM
Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou is a Harvard Law School graduate with a professed commitment to the rule of law.

  • But two incidents during his first seven months in office are prompting unflattering comparisons with his Nationalist Party's dictatorial past and raising questions about Ma's ability to protect Taiwan's fragile democracy.

    His apparent willingness to countenance his party's actions against opposition politicians is provoking stinging criticism of his administration, both at home and abroad. (馬英九總統畢業於美國哈佛大學法學院,但他就任七個月以來發生的兩件事──前總統陳水扁羈押更裁案,及上月底在上海舉行的國共論壇,看似不符合馬聲稱恪守法治的立場;前一件事被拿來與國民黨的獨裁歷史相提並論,後者則令人質疑馬是否有能力捍衛脆弱的台灣民主。)

    It is "reminiscent of Richard Nixon's behavior, as in ordering IRS investigations of groups he didn't like," said June Teufel Dreyer, a China-Taiwan expert at the University of Miami, in an e-mail response to questions. The IRS is the American tax agency. (引用上述2:扁羈押更裁一案上,馬英九明顯縱容國民黨人對付政敵的態度,已在海內外引發猛烈批評。美國邁阿密大學台海兩岸關係專家金德芳(June Teufel Dreyer)說,這令人想起當年美國總統尼克森的行為,下令國稅局調查他不喜歡的團體。)

    No one suggests Ma wants to turn the clock back on free elections and other democratic reforms that swept the island starting in the mid-1980s.

    What worries some is the efforts by Nationalist lawmakers to pressure the Ministry of Justice into prosecuting former officials of the rival Democratic Progressive Party, including former President Chen Shui-bian. (引用上述2:雖然沒有人說馬會讓台灣的民主走回頭路,但真正令人憂心的是,國民黨立委施壓法務部起訴包括陳水扁在內的多名民進黨政敵,以及真正的問題在於,馬無法阻止部份國民黨立委攻擊周占春法官、鼓動繼續押扁的舉措。)

    Chen was indicted on Dec. 12 on charges of money laundering, looting a special presidential fund and taking bribes during his eight years in office.

    Few deny that there is probably substance to the allegations. The problem, the critics contend, is that Ma has failed to stop a campaign by lawmakers to keep Chen in jail pending trial.

    Following his indictment, a three-judge panel from the Taipei District Court ordered him released on his own recognizance. Lead judge Chou Chan-chun said it was unlikely that Chen would attempt to flee before his trial.

    Prosecutors initially accepted the decision but, following intense criticism from Nationalist lawmakers, they changed their mind and filed an appeal.

    On Dec. 18, the court rejected the appeal.

    This provoked a new round of attacks led by Nationalist lawmaker Chiu Yi, who spent eight months in prison for leading violent protests against Chen's narrow re-election victory in 2004.

    "If Chou knows about shame, he should resign and let others handle the case," Chiu told reporters. "If he doesn't do so ... I will impeach him so that he loses his job."

    On Dec. 25 the District Court took the unusual step of shifting Chen's case to a different three-judge panel, giving the lead role to Tsai Shou-hsun, who had acquitted Ma on graft charges of his own in 2007.

    Three days later, the new panel accepted the prosecution's argument that Chen was a flight risk and ordered him back to jail.

    "The pressure from critics has been undisguised," The Apple Daily newspaper said in an editorial. "If a judge does not hand out a verdict according to their wishes, they ... besmirch his reputation. The judiciary should avoid considering political elements in a case."

    Ma spokesman Wang Yu-chi denied any political intervention in Chen's case. Taipei District Court spokesman Huang Chun-ming said the decision to change judges was for efficiency, so that the same panel would handle the cases of both Chen and his wife, who also faces graft charges.
    Typically, though, his wife's case would have been moved to the judges hearing his case, since hers is a less important one.

    Political scientist Wang Yeh-lih of Taipei's National Taiwan University said the most disturbing aspect of the Chen affair has been the readiness of Nationalist lawmakers to leak information from the investigation to allies in the media.  (引用自上述2:台大政治系教授王業立表示,扁案最擾人的層面,就是國民黨立委隨時準備好向立場相同的媒體洩漏調查內情,他也責怪特偵組檢察官未能恪守偵查不公開原則。)

    He also blamed prosecutors, saying they "consistently violated the principle of guarding the details of investigations during Chen's case."

    Wang said Ma's apparent inability to stand up to lawmakers in his own party was also evident in his reluctance to prevent senior Nationalist officials from holding talks in Shanghai last month with China's Communist Party.

    The negotiations, on two-way investment and cooperation in financial and service industries, circumvented the Straits Exchange Foundation, the Taiwanese body established to conduct talks with the mainland.

    The leaders of the Nationalist delegation included honorary party chairman Lien Chan, whom critics chide as a supporter of reunification with the mainland, something most Taiwanese oppose. Ma has pledged not to discuss the issue while in office.

    Wang said the meeting signaled the government's willingness to abdicate its authority to the ruling political party _ much as the Nationalist Party dictated policy during martial law from 1947 to 1987.

    Wang Yu-chi, the Ma spokesman, said any agreements reached with the mainland would need government approval.

    "The only agency recognized by the government to hold talks with China is the Straits Exchange Foundation," he said. "Non-governmental talks will not bring about the implementation of deals that are agreed upon."

    But Wang Yeh-lih, the political scientist, has his doubts.

    "The Nationalists are circumventing public supervision when they talk to the communists on its own," he said. "This is not something a democratic country would normally tolerate."  


    後來找到有另一個網誌提到這則英文新聞. 在這則網誌裡還討論到此新聞其中一個英文句子(No one suggests Ma wants to turn the clock back on free elections and other democratic reforms that swept the island starting in the mid-1980s.)的用法.

    這讓我想起之前美國學者第二封公開信裡白樂崎還特別糾正所謂 we have every expectation that....的真正意思. 現在這句no one suggests Ma....也有類似的情況. 句子表面上看起來是說: 沒有人會說馬政府讓台灣的民主走回頭路(走回獨裁等), 但全文其他卻指證歷歷,顯示馬政府事實上就是在走回頭路(.....that we are moving backwards into the past here).有興趣者可以前往該文一讀(英文的). 我只摘錄部份討論如下:

    UPDATE: Several us have been discussing how this statement....

    No one suggests Ma wants to turn the clock back on free elections and other democratic reforms that swept the island starting in the mid-1980s.

    ....which is totally untrue -- many public figures have suggested that -- is subtly but strongly contradicted by the rest of the article, which does in fact suggest that we are moving backwards into the past here.