相關中文新聞: 美國國務院評台灣人權
相關英文報導: US cites continued rights abuses in Taiwan, CONCERNS: A State Department report said that foreign spouses were targets of discrimination and that arranging marriages tended to treat women as property
之前轉載的如IFJ譴責政府干預媒體自由,陳雲林來台期間引起的風波,還有扁案有政治力的介入引發國際學者與媒體多次報導,還有野草莓運動都有所提及. 蠻全面的報導.
因為最近發現blogger的copy & paste很難用,分段不會跟著被帶過來, 這麼長的文章,我就懶得手動去幫忙分段了. 詳見此.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
[轉載]台灣民主的試驗仍進行中
台灣的民主試驗還在進行中,雖然很多倒退的事實,但是糾正的機制也存在,不幸中還有值得安慰的一點
以下原文
----------------------------------
Taiwan’s democratic test continues
By Christopher Walker Sarah CookTuesday, Feb 17, 2009, Page 8
Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.
Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.
First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.
In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”
Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.
These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.
The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.
The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public. (按: 好幾個涉嫌暴力的警察在之後湊巧得到晉升也被提出來討論了,之前我就提過了啊)
The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.
Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.
Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.
The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.
Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.
Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.
Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.
以下原文
----------------------------------
Taiwan’s democratic test continues
By Christopher Walker Sarah CookTuesday, Feb 17, 2009, Page 8
Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.
Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.
First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.
In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”
Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.
These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.
The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.
The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public. (按: 好幾個涉嫌暴力的警察在之後湊巧得到晉升也被提出來討論了,之前我就提過了啊)
The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.
Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.
Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.
The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.
Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.
Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.
Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
[轉載] Taiwan, South Korea muzzle pessimistic brokers
以下是經濟學人的報導. 台灣與南韓這下的確很像,政府要干預財經消息,只准報喜不可報憂(accentuate only the positive)
------------------------
Bye bye sell
Feb 5th 2009 HONG KONG AND SEOULFrom The Economist print edition
Tired of bad news about the financial markets? Censor it
Illustration by S. Kambayashi
NOT so many years ago brokers were prosecuted in America for shamelessly plugging the dogs of the dotcom boom. Consider it a sign of the times that governments in South Korea and Taiwan are now quietly encouraging brokers to accentuate only the positive.
The methods may differ, but if you have something critical to say and it somehow becomes public knowledge, you should brace yourself for unpleasant consequences. In December the Taiwan Securities Association, a trade body, reminded brokers, on behalf of the government, that the press must receive the firm’s approval before quoting research.
When critical brokers’ opinions are cited in newspapers, regulators now want “explanations”. On February 4th CLSA, a regional broker, issued a report saying Taiwan’s economy had deteriorated sharply. The press jumped on the report, and the government jumped on CLSA, which quickly issued a statement. The report was intended for clients alone and CLSA had not changed its investment opinions. Regulators have insidiously suggested that investment firms take a harder line by suing media outlets that report on their opinions.
In South Korea, a reluctance to issue sell recommendations has already taken hold. Of the 17,335 reports issued by South Korean brokers in 2008, there were 14,903 “buy” recommendations but not a single “sell”, according to FnGuide, a Seoul-based financial-information company. At best, that reflects poor analysis: the stockmarket tumbled 41% during the year.
But something more sinister may be afoot. JPMorgan, an American investment bank, was the target of an investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service after it suggested that problem loans at South Korea’s Hana Bank may be higher than the bank’s own estimates. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse was denounced by Hyundai Securities, which publicly castigated the firm after it halved its target price for the South Korean broker. One analyst recalls a threatening telephone call from a sushi-restaurant owner after he issued a “sell” recommendation: “I have many sharp knives. Stay away from dark alleys,” the man said.
-------
延伸閱讀:
我們還有言論自由嗎: 從《金融》部落格報明牌，金管會開罰 說起
這就是言論自由
------------------------
Bye bye sell
Feb 5th 2009 HONG KONG AND SEOULFrom The Economist print edition
Tired of bad news about the financial markets? Censor it
Illustration by S. Kambayashi
NOT so many years ago brokers were prosecuted in America for shamelessly plugging the dogs of the dotcom boom. Consider it a sign of the times that governments in South Korea and Taiwan are now quietly encouraging brokers to accentuate only the positive.
The methods may differ, but if you have something critical to say and it somehow becomes public knowledge, you should brace yourself for unpleasant consequences. In December the Taiwan Securities Association, a trade body, reminded brokers, on behalf of the government, that the press must receive the firm’s approval before quoting research.
When critical brokers’ opinions are cited in newspapers, regulators now want “explanations”. On February 4th CLSA, a regional broker, issued a report saying Taiwan’s economy had deteriorated sharply. The press jumped on the report, and the government jumped on CLSA, which quickly issued a statement. The report was intended for clients alone and CLSA had not changed its investment opinions. Regulators have insidiously suggested that investment firms take a harder line by suing media outlets that report on their opinions.
In South Korea, a reluctance to issue sell recommendations has already taken hold. Of the 17,335 reports issued by South Korean brokers in 2008, there were 14,903 “buy” recommendations but not a single “sell”, according to FnGuide, a Seoul-based financial-information company. At best, that reflects poor analysis: the stockmarket tumbled 41% during the year.
But something more sinister may be afoot. JPMorgan, an American investment bank, was the target of an investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service after it suggested that problem loans at South Korea’s Hana Bank may be higher than the bank’s own estimates. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse was denounced by Hyundai Securities, which publicly castigated the firm after it halved its target price for the South Korean broker. One analyst recalls a threatening telephone call from a sushi-restaurant owner after he issued a “sell” recommendation: “I have many sharp knives. Stay away from dark alleys,” the man said.
-------
延伸閱讀:
我們還有言論自由嗎: 從《金融》部落格報明牌，金管會開罰 說起
這就是言論自由
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
轉載: GIO minister answers open letter (馬政府回覆第三封公開信)
先轉載原文如下,有空再候補中譯或感想 .第三封公開信見此
----------------
GIO minister answers open letter
By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China. Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
----------------
GIO minister answers open letter
By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China. Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
Monday, February 2, 2009
[轉載] Political corruption in Taiwan: Trial and error ("審判"與錯誤)
沒想到連經濟學人都要湊一腳啊.
先說一下,這個標題下得很有意思. 有時候就語文的角度來閱讀就有很大的樂趣了. Trial and error通常指的是嘗試錯誤,因為嘗試,而犯錯,再從錯誤中學習. 在這裡trial又正好是"審判"的英文, 一語相關(pun), 我個人因此覺得這標題下得很有意思.
以下原文. 這裡有中文翻譯.
-------------
Jan 22nd 2009 TAIPEI
From The Economist print edition
A former president and the judiciary are both in the dock
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, this week pleaded not guilty at a hearing marking the start of his trial on corruption charges. Mr Chen, who ruled on a confrontational platform of independence from China, looked tired and dispirited, but was as combative as ever. “There is no way I can accept these charges and insults,” he told judges, after arriving at a Taipei court in handcuffs. His supporters are trying to ensure it is not just Mr Chen’s probity but also the integrity of Taiwanese justice that are on trial.
In one case he is alleged to have influenced the government to buy land from a company that bribed his wife, Wu Shu-chen. The couple is also charged with embezzlement from special presidential accounts, with forgery and with laundering ill-gotten money through Switzerland.
Mr Chen, who might face a life sentence, insists he is innocent and faces what amounts to political persecution. This week prosecutors produced two new charges, of extortion and profiteering in connection with the land deal. Mr Chen accused them of making Taiwan’s president seem like a local bully or mafia boss: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
Mr Chen is very unpopular. And his case was dealt a blow later in the week when his son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law all pleaded guilty to laundering large sums of money for the family.
Nevertheless, Mr Chen’s trial is a test for Taiwan’s two-decade-old democracy, which has already managed two peaceful transfers of power to the opposition. Many are heartened that corruption, long endemic in politics, is being attacked and that a former president can stand trial like a common citizen.
Critics, however, say recent judicial proceedings have been marred by sloppy improprieties, and, some allege, bias towards the Nationalist party, the Kuomintang or KMT, which took power last May under President Ma Ying-jeou. Mr Chen was imprisoned incommunicado for a month before he was charged, raising questions about the presumption of innocence. A panel of judges that released Mr Chen from prison without bail last month was mysteriously replaced by a new one that ordered his reimprisonment a fortnight later. Prosecutors had appealed and KMT politicians had complained, leading to suspicions of political interference. The same judges are presiding over his trial. (註: 看這裡用"marred"這個字也是很美啊,相對於用"damaged"言)
Bruce Jacobs, a Taiwan expert at Monash University in Australia, points out that recent corruption investigations have mainly been aimed at opposition politicians; prosecutors seem far less interested in investigating KMT figures. He also points to the “lack of discretion” in a remarkably tasteless recent incident: prosecutors involved in Mr Chen’s case performed a comic skit at a party at the justice ministry. To the glee of the audience, one is said to have mimicked the former president’s arrest by raising handcuffed hands above her head and shouting slogans. Shown on television, this outraged many.
Mr Ma’s spokesman denies any party-political bias among prosecutors, and insists the president respects judicial neutrality. But even it that is true, the judiciary’s lack of professionalism risks creating public cynicism about its independence, undermining both the drive against corruption and respect for the courts’ decisions.
-----------
延伸閱讀
Why Chen Shui-bian Will Not Get a Fair Trial in Taiwan.Monday February 02, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
先說一下,這個標題下得很有意思. 有時候就語文的角度來閱讀就有很大的樂趣了. Trial and error通常指的是嘗試錯誤,因為嘗試,而犯錯,再從錯誤中學習. 在這裡trial又正好是"審判"的英文, 一語相關(pun), 我個人因此覺得這標題下得很有意思.
以下原文. 這裡有中文翻譯.
-------------
Jan 22nd 2009 TAIPEI
From The Economist print edition
A former president and the judiciary are both in the dock
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, this week pleaded not guilty at a hearing marking the start of his trial on corruption charges. Mr Chen, who ruled on a confrontational platform of independence from China, looked tired and dispirited, but was as combative as ever. “There is no way I can accept these charges and insults,” he told judges, after arriving at a Taipei court in handcuffs. His supporters are trying to ensure it is not just Mr Chen’s probity but also the integrity of Taiwanese justice that are on trial.
In one case he is alleged to have influenced the government to buy land from a company that bribed his wife, Wu Shu-chen. The couple is also charged with embezzlement from special presidential accounts, with forgery and with laundering ill-gotten money through Switzerland.
Mr Chen, who might face a life sentence, insists he is innocent and faces what amounts to political persecution. This week prosecutors produced two new charges, of extortion and profiteering in connection with the land deal. Mr Chen accused them of making Taiwan’s president seem like a local bully or mafia boss: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
Mr Chen is very unpopular. And his case was dealt a blow later in the week when his son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law all pleaded guilty to laundering large sums of money for the family.
Nevertheless, Mr Chen’s trial is a test for Taiwan’s two-decade-old democracy, which has already managed two peaceful transfers of power to the opposition. Many are heartened that corruption, long endemic in politics, is being attacked and that a former president can stand trial like a common citizen.
Critics, however, say recent judicial proceedings have been marred by sloppy improprieties, and, some allege, bias towards the Nationalist party, the Kuomintang or KMT, which took power last May under President Ma Ying-jeou. Mr Chen was imprisoned incommunicado for a month before he was charged, raising questions about the presumption of innocence. A panel of judges that released Mr Chen from prison without bail last month was mysteriously replaced by a new one that ordered his reimprisonment a fortnight later. Prosecutors had appealed and KMT politicians had complained, leading to suspicions of political interference. The same judges are presiding over his trial. (註: 看這裡用"marred"這個字也是很美啊,相對於用"damaged"言)
Bruce Jacobs, a Taiwan expert at Monash University in Australia, points out that recent corruption investigations have mainly been aimed at opposition politicians; prosecutors seem far less interested in investigating KMT figures. He also points to the “lack of discretion” in a remarkably tasteless recent incident: prosecutors involved in Mr Chen’s case performed a comic skit at a party at the justice ministry. To the glee of the audience, one is said to have mimicked the former president’s arrest by raising handcuffed hands above her head and shouting slogans. Shown on television, this outraged many.
Mr Ma’s spokesman denies any party-political bias among prosecutors, and insists the president respects judicial neutrality. But even it that is true, the judiciary’s lack of professionalism risks creating public cynicism about its independence, undermining both the drive against corruption and respect for the courts’ decisions.
-----------
延伸閱讀
Why Chen Shui-bian Will Not Get a Fair Trial in Taiwan.Monday February 02, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
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.
-------------
原文連結
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.
(首先,台灣並未依照之前國際組織,包含自由之家與國際特赦組織的建議成立獨立小組來調查陳雲林期間對人權,特別是警察濫權與拑害言論自由的相關案件.)
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.”
(第三,我們非常憂慮檢察官向媒體洩漏訴訟中案件的任何資訊的情況...........據美聯社1/4的報導指出,台大教授王業立也曾經提到類似的觀點,尤其是陳水扁的案子)
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.
(以我們的觀點看來,審理扁案中的檢察官參與演出與王部長的回應都顯示台灣缺乏司法專業性與政治中立性--也就是台灣司法不專業而且受到政治影響啦)
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.
(結語就是要馬總統好好捍衛台灣二十年來的民主,人權,自由表達的權利啦,也請馬總統好好重建台灣司法的公正性啦)
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
------------
延伸閱讀
第一封公開信 與 王清峰的回函
第二封公開信 與 王清峰的回函
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.
-------------
原文連結
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.
(首先,台灣並未依照之前國際組織,包含自由之家與國際特赦組織的建議成立獨立小組來調查陳雲林期間對人權,特別是警察濫權與拑害言論自由的相關案件.)
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.”
(第三,我們非常憂慮檢察官向媒體洩漏訴訟中案件的任何資訊的情況...........據美聯社1/4的報導指出,台大教授王業立也曾經提到類似的觀點,尤其是陳水扁的案子)
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.
(以我們的觀點看來,審理扁案中的檢察官參與演出與王部長的回應都顯示台灣缺乏司法專業性與政治中立性--也就是台灣司法不專業而且受到政治影響啦)
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.
(結語就是要馬總統好好捍衛台灣二十年來的民主,人權,自由表達的權利啦,也請馬總統好好重建台灣司法的公正性啦)
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
------------
延伸閱讀
第一封公開信 與 王清峰的回函
第二封公開信 與 王清峰的回函
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).
孔的文章轉載如下(中譯來自上面連結):
-----------
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.
台北，台灣：台灣總統馬英九的哈佛法學院指導教授星期六表示，他的前學生應該要立刻採取行動，阻止「令人越來越不安的鬧劇氣氛」讓前任總統接受公平審判的權力受損。
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.
這個短劇嘲笑陳水扁在11月因被收賄起訴遭到逮捕的情形。一位女性表演他高舉並揮動著銬上手銬的雙手，並抱怨警察暴力及司法迫害。
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.
陳水扁被控洗錢、賄賂及挪用總統特別經費的案件要在星期一開庭審理。雖然承認他的家人自行將超過兩千萬米金匯至海外帳戶，他說這些錢是未用的競選捐款，根據台灣法律是屬於他的，可以自由運用。
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."
在美聯社的電話專訪裡，孔傑榮說演出這場短劇是「不可思議的」。
"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.
「這種現象彷彿是有人企圖要拋棄台灣過去15年所有的進步，」他說，指的是台灣由獨裁走向多黨民主的逐漸演變。
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."
孔傑榮表示，馬英九應該立即採取行動，強迫司法部長王清峰解釋她為這場短劇辯解的話，包括她描述那「只是反映時事的小小演出。」
"If he doesn't get this, who in Taiwan can get it?" he said.
「如果他不做的話，台灣還有誰可以做得到？」他說。
Presidential spokesman Wang Yu-chi said Ma would not intervene with the justice minister on Chen's trial.
總統府發言人王郁琦表示，馬英九不會針對陳水扁案件干預司法部長。
"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."
「馬英九總統的立場是，他尊重司法，不會干預個案，」他說。「同時他也希望法官的表現不會引起民眾有不當的政治反應。」
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.
有種「令人越來越感到不安的鬧劇氣氛」圍繞著陳水扁案的案件，孔傑榮表示。他指的除了短劇演出外，還包括台北地院推翻之前的裁定，下令監禁候審中的陳水扁。
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.
孔傑榮說，馬英九處理陳水扁案件的態度顯示他已經做出明確的決定：是為了安撫國民黨極端派系，而非貼近台灣具有中間政治色彩的多數群眾。
"He's acting like (President George W.) Bush in catering to the most right wing conservative elements," he said.
「他像布希（總統）一樣迎合保守極右派份子，」他說。
Presidential spokesman Wang rejected that characterization.
總統府發言人王郁琦拒絕接受這種說法。
"(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."
「（馬英九的）不干預政策已經讓部分黨員感到不快，他們相信他會更積極處理陳水扁案件，」他說。「因此說馬總統目前處理陳水扁案件的方式是為了安撫部分黨員並不正確。」
---------
延伸閱讀:
台灣國內媒體很傷腦筋啊
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).
孔的文章轉載如下(中譯來自上面連結):
-----------
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.
台北，台灣：台灣總統馬英九的哈佛法學院指導教授星期六表示，他的前學生應該要立刻採取行動，阻止「令人越來越不安的鬧劇氣氛」讓前任總統接受公平審判的權力受損。
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.
這個短劇嘲笑陳水扁在11月因被收賄起訴遭到逮捕的情形。一位女性表演他高舉並揮動著銬上手銬的雙手，並抱怨警察暴力及司法迫害。
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.
陳水扁被控洗錢、賄賂及挪用總統特別經費的案件要在星期一開庭審理。雖然承認他的家人自行將超過兩千萬米金匯至海外帳戶，他說這些錢是未用的競選捐款，根據台灣法律是屬於他的，可以自由運用。
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."
在美聯社的電話專訪裡，孔傑榮說演出這場短劇是「不可思議的」。
"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.
「這種現象彷彿是有人企圖要拋棄台灣過去15年所有的進步，」他說，指的是台灣由獨裁走向多黨民主的逐漸演變。
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."
孔傑榮表示，馬英九應該立即採取行動，強迫司法部長王清峰解釋她為這場短劇辯解的話，包括她描述那「只是反映時事的小小演出。」
"If he doesn't get this, who in Taiwan can get it?" he said.
「如果他不做的話，台灣還有誰可以做得到？」他說。
Presidential spokesman Wang Yu-chi said Ma would not intervene with the justice minister on Chen's trial.
總統府發言人王郁琦表示，馬英九不會針對陳水扁案件干預司法部長。
"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."
「馬英九總統的立場是，他尊重司法，不會干預個案，」他說。「同時他也希望法官的表現不會引起民眾有不當的政治反應。」
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.
有種「令人越來越感到不安的鬧劇氣氛」圍繞著陳水扁案的案件，孔傑榮表示。他指的除了短劇演出外，還包括台北地院推翻之前的裁定，下令監禁候審中的陳水扁。
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.
孔傑榮說，馬英九處理陳水扁案件的態度顯示他已經做出明確的決定：是為了安撫國民黨極端派系，而非貼近台灣具有中間政治色彩的多數群眾。
"He's acting like (President George W.) Bush in catering to the most right wing conservative elements," he said.
「他像布希（總統）一樣迎合保守極右派份子，」他說。
Presidential spokesman Wang rejected that characterization.
總統府發言人王郁琦拒絕接受這種說法。
"(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."
「（馬英九的）不干預政策已經讓部分黨員感到不快，他們相信他會更積極處理陳水扁案件，」他說。「因此說馬總統目前處理陳水扁案件的方式是為了安撫部分黨員並不正確。」
---------
延伸閱讀:
台灣國內媒體很傷腦筋啊
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:
"「聽音辨義」才是追尋一個地名意義的正確方法。至於那些在漢字堆裡「望文生義」的討論，總是誤入歧途。"
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
延伸閱讀:
"的"與"得"
跳脫文字的迷障
看人家的廣東話廣東文,想想自己的台語台文 ;
the fate of language
語言戰爭簡表
台灣日式地名新論
10/19/2010 updated:
不輸人的台語
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:
"「聽音辨義」才是追尋一個地名意義的正確方法。至於那些在漢字堆裡「望文生義」的討論，總是誤入歧途。"
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
延伸閱讀:
"的"與"得"
跳脫文字的迷障
看人家的廣東話廣東文,想想自己的台語台文 ;
the fate of language
語言戰爭簡表
台灣日式地名新論
10/19/2010 updated:
不輸人的台語
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)
我將標題意譯為台灣司法錯失機會.因為從內文裡再三提到台灣的民主有賴一個透明,公正的司法來確保,然而最近的司法案件卻顯示台灣的司法讓人對此期望已經落空.
由於中時已有中文版, 我就不翻譯了. 感想後補
----------------------------
Chen Judges Bungle Their Chance
Author:
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
中文版:
孔傑榮專欄：對扁案的追訴：第一階段
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。
台灣人多年來辛苦爭取而得來的民主現今正處於困境之中。貪腐威脅台灣政治的清廉。憑藉一個公平，透明，且可信賴的司法體系以執法乃解決此困境所不可或缺。儘管台灣社會中政治嚴重對立，且不同政黨支持者間缺乏互信，檢方於去年十一月十一日逮捕陳後，於起訴狀中對陳及其家屬與部屬大規模貪腐之指控，陳明已有令社會大眾接受有罪判決結果的預期。經由公平的刑事訴訟程序所獲致的有罪判決將可望能驗證清廉政府的價值，遏制類似犯行，並提升社會大眾對近二十年前始脫離專制國民黨政府控制的法院之信賴。
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。此乃因中國人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）。
兩度裁定無保釋放陳的台北地院周占春庭長的專庭與兩度駁回該庭裁定的台灣高等法院之間的爭議，以將經由抽籤分配給周庭長專庭審理的陳案之眾多公訴合併於蔡守訓庭長的專庭審理之陳與其妻吳淑珍侵占國務機要費案作終結。此等合併令蔡庭長主導之專庭得以就陳的審理中羈押之第三度裁定加以審訊，並因此重新做出羈押陳的裁定。然而，此裁定卻與數日前才發布的司法院大法官會議解釋第六五三號解釋意旨有所衝突。該號解釋理由書中力陳刑事被告之羈押僅能為保全刑事程序之最後手段。雖然陳並未如公訴前為期三十二日的審前羈押般被戴上手銬以及禁止接見，惟其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。
在押被告的防禦權在其他方面亦明顯受到制約，例如他們無法與證人或其他共同被告討論案情，此乃為檢方在陳的羈押裁定抗告理由中陳明的兩大主要考量之一。另一考量則是如未行羈押，陳可能逃亡，離開台灣。蔡庭長事實上是可以以高額的保釋金或限制住居之方式以高度降低陳逃亡的可能。此外，如陳一審被判決有罪，陳逃亡的動機理應只會增強。然而，此等可能性能意味著陳在高等法院及最高法院的上訴審理中應該繼續被羈押嗎？如果答案是肯定的，那將意味著陳在判決確定前將被羈押數年之久。惟值得憂心的是無罪推定至此可能成為毫無意義，判決確定前的羈押也可能轉化成為未經判決確定之犯行的刑事處罰。
每個國家都深受判決確定前被告的羈押造成之諸多難題所困擾。然而台灣卻以環繞著將審理公訴陳與其他同案被告的「後案」合併於審理二○○六年起訴之國務機要費案的「前案」之諸多難以解開的謎團最令人矚目。若併案審理為必要，台北地院何不在後案被提起公訴時即採行？
相反的，台北地院原先卻決定涉及洗錢與其他複雜案情，以及陳所涉嫌之侵吞國務機要費的後案，應由少數被期待較蔡庭長之刑事庭更專精於處理複雜的財務金融財務犯罪專庭抽籤來加以決定審理庭。如金融專庭比蔡庭長所屬之一般刑事庭更適合審理後案，則台北地院如何合理說明其後案併前案的處理方式？確保司法免受干預的法官法定原則能如此輕易地被規避嗎？
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]
如此一來，兩個審理庭審理程序之進行都會獲致廣泛的公眾支持。司法正義，如西諺所云，不只必須被實現，更必須使其實現過程被感受察覺。此乃為司法正當性之代價。
（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）
[1]
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--
問：北院認為兩個法官各辦各的，擔心發生裁判歧異，他們也沒有要周占春交出案件，是周自己不想辦才簽出。
(黃)答：先講周占春，我們回顧一下歷史，當時他做出裁定，被另一邊的人罵到臭頭，發動各種方式和媒體攻勢，包括私人的事、不知道有沒有的事都被攻訐，讓法官承受非常大的壓力，幾乎無招架之力，這個時候法官審判獨立的空間可以說沒有，此時，有媒體又運作後案併前案、避免裁判歧異等議題。
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。"
-----
延伸閱讀:(英文)
Taiwan’s Justice On Trial by Julian Baum(Posted December 5, 2008)
ROC Judiciary Blasted: Day of Democracy Commentary
Taiwan on trial(英), (中)
由於中時已有中文版, 我就不翻譯了. 感想後補
----------------------------
Chen Judges Bungle Their Chance
Author:
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
中文版:
孔傑榮專欄：對扁案的追訴：第一階段
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。
台灣人多年來辛苦爭取而得來的民主現今正處於困境之中。貪腐威脅台灣政治的清廉。憑藉一個公平，透明，且可信賴的司法體系以執法乃解決此困境所不可或缺。儘管台灣社會中政治嚴重對立，且不同政黨支持者間缺乏互信，檢方於去年十一月十一日逮捕陳後，於起訴狀中對陳及其家屬與部屬大規模貪腐之指控，陳明已有令社會大眾接受有罪判決結果的預期。經由公平的刑事訴訟程序所獲致的有罪判決將可望能驗證清廉政府的價值，遏制類似犯行，並提升社會大眾對近二十年前始脫離專制國民黨政府控制的法院之信賴。
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。此乃因中國人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）。
兩度裁定無保釋放陳的台北地院周占春庭長的專庭與兩度駁回該庭裁定的台灣高等法院之間的爭議，以將經由抽籤分配給周庭長專庭審理的陳案之眾多公訴合併於蔡守訓庭長的專庭審理之陳與其妻吳淑珍侵占國務機要費案作終結。此等合併令蔡庭長主導之專庭得以就陳的審理中羈押之第三度裁定加以審訊，並因此重新做出羈押陳的裁定。然而，此裁定卻與數日前才發布的司法院大法官會議解釋第六五三號解釋意旨有所衝突。該號解釋理由書中力陳刑事被告之羈押僅能為保全刑事程序之最後手段。雖然陳並未如公訴前為期三十二日的審前羈押般被戴上手銬以及禁止接見，惟其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。
在押被告的防禦權在其他方面亦明顯受到制約，例如他們無法與證人或其他共同被告討論案情，此乃為檢方在陳的羈押裁定抗告理由中陳明的兩大主要考量之一。另一考量則是如未行羈押，陳可能逃亡，離開台灣。蔡庭長事實上是可以以高額的保釋金或限制住居之方式以高度降低陳逃亡的可能。此外，如陳一審被判決有罪，陳逃亡的動機理應只會增強。然而，此等可能性能意味著陳在高等法院及最高法院的上訴審理中應該繼續被羈押嗎？如果答案是肯定的，那將意味著陳在判決確定前將被羈押數年之久。惟值得憂心的是無罪推定至此可能成為毫無意義，判決確定前的羈押也可能轉化成為未經判決確定之犯行的刑事處罰。
每個國家都深受判決確定前被告的羈押造成之諸多難題所困擾。然而台灣卻以環繞著將審理公訴陳與其他同案被告的「後案」合併於審理二○○六年起訴之國務機要費案的「前案」之諸多難以解開的謎團最令人矚目。若併案審理為必要，台北地院何不在後案被提起公訴時即採行？
相反的，台北地院原先卻決定涉及洗錢與其他複雜案情，以及陳所涉嫌之侵吞國務機要費的後案，應由少數被期待較蔡庭長之刑事庭更專精於處理複雜的財務金融財務犯罪專庭抽籤來加以決定審理庭。如金融專庭比蔡庭長所屬之一般刑事庭更適合審理後案，則台北地院如何合理說明其後案併前案的處理方式？確保司法免受干預的法官法定原則能如此輕易地被規避嗎？
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]
如此一來，兩個審理庭審理程序之進行都會獲致廣泛的公眾支持。司法正義，如西諺所云，不只必須被實現，更必須使其實現過程被感受察覺。此乃為司法正當性之代價。
（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）
[1]
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--
問：北院認為兩個法官各辦各的，擔心發生裁判歧異，他們也沒有要周占春交出案件，是周自己不想辦才簽出。
(黃)答：先講周占春，我們回顧一下歷史，當時他做出裁定，被另一邊的人罵到臭頭，發動各種方式和媒體攻勢，包括私人的事、不知道有沒有的事都被攻訐，讓法官承受非常大的壓力，幾乎無招架之力，這個時候法官審判獨立的空間可以說沒有，此時，有媒體又運作後案併前案、避免裁判歧異等議題。
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。"
-----
延伸閱讀:(英文)
Taiwan’s Justice On Trial by Julian Baum(Posted December 5, 2008)
ROC Judiciary Blasted: Day of Democracy Commentary
Taiwan on trial(英), (中)
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,請參考此.
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",參考此]
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.
WANG CHING-FENG
Minister of JusticeTaipei
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",參考此]
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.
WANG CHING-FENG
Minister of JusticeTaipei
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)