Taiwan's Judiciary: Corrupt & Selectively Cruel & Inhumane

  Some of you may be thinking that Zain Dean and I are just a couple of exceptions to what Taiwan's government likes to trumpet as a fair, impartial and just legal system. Nothing could be further from the truth of what really goes on in the island's legal sphere. Increasingly, egregious violations of defendants' legal and human rights are reported in Taiwan's media without any repercussions for those involved and without any tangible action by the government to rectify the situation.
  In a Feb. 21, 2013, Taipei Times editorial squarely aimed at both the judiciary and Taiwan president Ma Ying Jeou, the paper calls to task the government's lip service to "democratic values" and "protection of human rights." In a particularly pointed assessment of Ma's true regard for human rights, the editorial states:

 "Ma’s lack of humanity and respect for his predecessor has led some to wonder whether he truly keeps the meaning of “human rights” close to his heart and grasps the meaning embodied in the contents of the two international human rights covenants he has signed."

  You can read the full editorial here: The abuse of Chen's human rights 

  In fact, the only exceptions we may be are that we are two of very few expats (or Taiwanese) who dare to speak out publicly about the legal and human rights violations we have suffered at the hands of the island's nefarious judiciary. The extensive and long-running abuses that have plagued prosecutor's offices, the courts, and the police are regularly reported in Taiwan's news media and on some Taiwan and international websites.    
  However, little to nothing of any significance has been done by the government to remedy the myriad problems of corruption, cronyism, impartiality, ineptitude and ..... Equally shocking is that the public in Taiwan has largely remained passive for decades in demanding the necessary changes that would would protect them.
  Taiwan needs a lot more of this kind of voice, a Taipei Times reader who recently shared her dissatisfaction and disgust about Taiwan's lack of judicial integrity and it's shameful handling of former president Chen Shui-bian's corruption trials and corresponding inhumane and ill treatment he has suffered in jail for many years:

Tue, Mar 05, 2013  

[LETTER]

A-bian’s trials a disgrace

One of the hottest political topics surrounding the news media in Taiwan nowadays is whether former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) should be given medical parole from prison on the grounds of his failing health.

The fervor has been accentuated by a short video recently released by a member of the Control Yuan. In the video, we see a man walking with difficulty, handicapped, stuttering and with other debilitated motor skills.

We cannot believe this was once a two-term president of Taiwan, who was willing to say and do things that pissed off a former president of the US, and won himself notoriety as a troublemaker and other expletives unfit to be published.

The irony about Chen Shui-bian’s legal battle is that it would have been thrown out of court and ended long ago when Chen was still healthy had it occured in the US.

Of all the dirty maneuverings, either covert or overt, conducted by members of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division throughout the trials concerning Chen and the subsequent charges of corruption and graft, none is as nefarious as coaching some of the key witnesses to perjure themselves to secure a conviction.

During one of the trial proceedings, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) overtly sought to influence the judges in charge by telling them that rendering a verdict in favor of Chen would conflict with the public’s expectations.

This shocking and unabashed disfranchising of judicial integrity in Taiwan has totally eroded the people’s confidence in its judicial system.

A rotten to the core judicial infrastructure, which can be manipulated at will, undoubtedly alarmed the British man [Zain Dean] who recently ruffled legal feathers in Taiwan by escaping the clutches of the judiciary by illegal means.

Such is the disgraceful state of the judicial system in Taiwan and there is not much hope of Chen being granted medical parole when the president himself, a graduate of Harvard Law School, takes the lead in making law and order a travesty.

Yang Chunhui
Utah

A Copy of the Court Decision...Finally!

  My friend in Taiwan finally got a copy of the court decision a few days ago after a verbal tussle with the Beitou District Police over whether or not she was authorized to pick up the document on my behalf from their office. Before I left Taiwan I had filed an official pleading with the court stating that I would be leaving Taiwan and my friend had my authorization to receive the court's decision.   

  Even after that, the court still could not manage to do things correctly - first sending the decision to the address where I no longer lived, and then not notifying the Beitou police that my friend had permission to receive the document. So much unprofessionalism among Taiwan's judicial, law enforcement (what an oxymoron!) and government officials.

  The court decision is 18 pages long, so I will post it gradually, a couple pages at a time over the next several days. It is a faxed copy that was scanned by my friend so it's a bit rough. Later when I get the original document I'll scan it myself and re-post the better images.

  For now I don't have much to say about the decision because I've only gotten a very general translation of some key points from my friend - the most key point being that the court ruled against me in my lawsuit on all points. When I can get a more detailed translation I'll be able to comment better on the judges' arguments, problems, etc. Another point my friend shared was that NOWHERE does the decision mention that "several witnesses saw me touch the accuser". It's either a fabrication of those who spread the decision to the media or just plain bad, inaccurate, sensationalized reporting by Taiwan's media.

  Here are the first two pages of the Taipei District Court's decision: