Radio Interview on the Kenya Deportation Case: Li Chia-wen / Professor, Department of Law, National Cheng Kung University

Host / Yu Ting-kuei, Hsinchu Universal Broadcasting Station
Guest / Li Chia-wen, Professor, Department of Law, National Cheng Kung University

 

Li Chia-wen

Hello, host and listeners.

Host

Professor, pre-judging a case does not seem to be a first for Minister of Justice Lo Ying-sheh. Back during the parliamentary wiretapping case—part of the September Strife between Ma and Wang—she first claimed to have no preconceived stance, but later stated that the Special Investigation Division (SID) lacked subjective intent. Does 'subjective intent' here mean the SID had no deliberate intent, right? Before the truth was even clear, she was already saying people didn't mean it. What about this Kenya case?

Li Chia-wen

From my perspective, she is completely swallowing the Chinese narrative, directly concluding that these individuals are telecom fraudsters, and since the victims are in China, sending them to China is taken for granted.

Host

Right, Professor, but she claims she was merely questioning, not echoing China!

Li Chia-wen

She didn't echo China? She hasn't even obtained any information yet, and I didn't hear her question China at all!

Host

She said that, for now, it appears there are no victims in Taiwan.

Li Chia-wen

Saying 'there are currently no victims in Taiwan' is jumping to conclusions far too quickly. How can one know without an investigation?

Host

She also answered legislators: 'If China does not give us the data, we will bring the people back.' What does that sentence mean?

Li Chia-wen

If China does not give us any data, we wouldn't even be able to conduct a trial or adjudicate the case. Following her logic, bringing them back would have even less justification.

Host

Media reports say that claiming China is the victim party and holds judicial jurisdiction before any evidence is presented—isn't making such a statement also far too early?

Li Chia-wen

That is indeed far too early. In fact, Prosecutor Lin Ta's article mentioned that the judicial jurisdiction of transnational telecommunications fraud cases is very complex. The trajectory might pass through many countries; telecommunications companies might be located in one country, while fund transfers happen in another. From my point of view, it is hard to say that holding a trial in any particular country would be especially advantageous or disadvantageous, and it is uncertain which country holds exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, according to Prosecutor Lin's article, whether the victims can ultimately identify the perpetrators remains questionable. The article cites Taiwan's past experiences in investigating transnational telecom fraud cases, where victims were often unable to make identifications, and victims in China may face the exact same problem. Therefore, under circumstances where the evidence victims can provide is extremely limited, why must the trial be held in China? The practical significance of holding the trial in China is not substantial. Even assuming all victims are in China, telecommunications and fund transfers passed through many different countries, so regardless of which country conducts the trial, there will be issues of overseas witnesses and overseas evidence. When the evidence provided by victims holds little significance, no particular country's trial will be especially advantageous or disadvantageous. Under such circumstances, I believe the suspects should be sent back to Taiwan to be tried by Taiwan's fairer and more rigorous judicial system. This is not shielding our own people, but rather stemming from a lack of trust in China's judicial system, and because we cannot understand why someone would be forced to make a televised coerced confession. In the past, many political dissidents have also confessed on television. In Taiwan, Chiang Kuo-ch'ing also confessed in the past; let us not forget that a 'confession' does not signify much (he could very well have been innocent).

Host

You just mentioned the cross-border issue. Is cross-border evidence gathering genuinely difficult, leading to international criticism and a poor impression of our rulings in this area (telecom fraud)?

Li Chia-wen

Cross-border investigations are truly difficult because they require judicial assistance. This problem has actually occurred before, but with the popularization of the internet in recent years, the problems have multiplied. To solve these issues, various countries have successively begun signing mutual judicial assistance agreements. Even without a mutual judicial assistance agreement, negotiations can still be conducted on a case-by-case basis, or through Interpol. Therefore, the real problem Taiwan actually faces is suppression by China. China's suppression prevents Taiwan from normally engaging in mutual judicial assistance with other countries; otherwise, mutual judicial assistance is necessary among all nations. Consequently, no matter how poor a country's judicial environment may be, advanced nations still sign agreements with them. For instance, Germany and the US have both signed agreements with China. No country is foolish enough to refuse simply because they think the other country's judiciary is terrible or its national power is weak, because mutual judicial assistance requires an intensive, closely-woven net.

Host

Professor, you just mentioned the mutual judicial assistance agreements signed with China. We know they usually come with certain provisos.

Li Chia-wen

The Cross-Strait Cross-Border Civil and Criminal Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement has many things written vaguely. I once invited a prosecutor to give a lecture, and I feel the biggest problem with cross-strait judicial assistance is that our criminal authorities sometimes disregard sovereignty. The counterpart contacts us using lower-level organizations, and our criminal authorities, eager to take credit, bypass the Ministry of Justice and contact them directly, while also handing over a massive amount of information.

Host

How does this compare with other countries?

Li Chia-wen

Compared to the agreements signed with the US in 2002 and the Philippines in 2013, there is simply no comparison. The provisions are extremely sketchy, including how evidence is transmitted and what conditions are required. When we engage in judicial assistance with China to retrieve evidence, that evidence is meant to be used in our own courts. Therefore, when signing a mutual judicial assistance agreement, one tries to require the other country (when acquiring evidence) to meet our standards. However, this is not discussed at all in the Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement. As a result, evidence retrieved through cross-strait judicial assistance is sometimes actually inadmissible in Taiwan. To the general public, they might think, 'Well, evidence is evidence anyway,' or prosecutors might think, 'There is evidence, why aren't you using it?' and then start criticizing the courts. But if evidence has not been examined, the actual truth remains unknown. Take the Tu brothers' case, for example. In the Tu brothers' case, a witness—a taxi driver—claimed to have seen the Tu father and son buying watermelon knives. Yet that witness did not come to Taiwan, and the defendants had no way to cross-examine him. Moreover, the witness's first statement claimed he drove the Tu father and son to buy watermelon frost (herbal powder), and only in his second statement did he say they bought watermelon knives. So was it watermelon frost or watermelon knives? If they really went to buy watermelon knives, what role did this taxi driver play in the case? Whether he was an accomplice needs to be clarified. For the court, a more prudent approach is that if such key testimony is to be used for conviction, the defendant should be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. If the witness's whereabouts are unknown, it should still be judged according to the Code of Criminal Procedure as to whether it possesses evidentiary competence. In fact, the reason the Tu brothers' case sparked so much controversy is precisely because our courts did not apply rules of evidence all that strictly. When I see the general public attacking Taiwanese courts for viewing evidence too strictly, I find it absurd. From a scholar's perspective, Taiwanese courts are actually not particularly strict at all.

Host

As for fraud penalties, they can be up to 30 years, which is actually not light. Is it that the courts are handing down overly lenient sentences?

Li Chia-wen

Taking the cases brought back from the Philippines as an example, those were adjudicated by the Taichung District Court. I reviewed the indictment by the Taichung District Prosecutors Office, the judgment of the district court, and the final verdict of the High Court. The biggest problem with the prosecution and trial of the case was that (Taiwan) was never able to obtain relevant data regarding the victims in China, making it impossible to confirm whether the victims actually transferred funds. Therefore, although the defendants confessed to making phone calls, when it cannot be confirmed whether losses actually occurred, the crime was legally an attempted offense.

Host

So what is the problem with the group from Malaysia?

Li Chia-wen

The additional problem in the Malaysia case is that only the people were returned, without any evidence provided. Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that to apply for detention, there must be evidence; on what grounds can we detain them without evidence? Unless we specially and automatically presume fraud suspects sent back from foreign countries to be guilty, forgetting our Code of Criminal Procedure (and the presumption of innocence). In fact, I think the biggest problem is that Taiwan might have its overall criminal procedure dragged down by these cases. We are beginning to envy China's draconian laws and severe punishments, completely failing to reflect on whether the standards of China's judiciary are fair and just, and instead envying how heavily and swiftly they can sentence people (Host: Meaning reverting from democracy back to authoritarianism). To combat crime, we forget the cases from the past where we suffered great pain and lessons (Host: like Taiwanese businessmen being arbitrarily arrested). Actually, it's not just political cases where China acts that way.

Host

China refusing to provide relevant evidence and data is hardly a new thing. So, signing mutual judicial assistance agreements that contain provisos and ambiguous clauses—is this even useful?

Li Chia-wen

This actually involves diplomacy. Just a few days ago, I heard a prosecutor say that how much evidence China gives you depends entirely on their mood. A few days ago, I gave a lecture where my co-panelist was the prosecutor who handled the Tu brothers' case. He said that back during the DPP administration, cross-strait relations were extremely poor and there was no mutual judicial assistance agreement. He went to China alone, single-handedly, to make contact. Initially, they weren't going to give him any evidence, but after drinking and having a pleasant chat, the other side decided to hand over some evidence (Host: Which is why some people say China is ruled by men, not by law). I also discussed this with the first-instance judge of this case. The case was acquitted at first instance. At that time, Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure had not yet been reformed, and requirements for evidentiary competence were not as strict. Therefore, they didn't rule out the evidence on the grounds that 'there was no cross-examination, hence this evidence is inadmissible.' Rather, they believed the evidence had numerous problems. Back then, forensic expert Weng Ching-hui was sent over to inspect China's forensic methods, such as comparing adhesive tape (one of the pieces of evidence in the case). Fans of CSI probably know that textures are usually compared against a lighter-colored background, but in China a darker background was used, and evidence was placed haphazardly. If you questioned the Chinese forensic personnel, you might find their statements inconsistent. This shows that Chinese forensics had not reached that level, or perhaps they simply did not value or care about it. But such evidence looks terrifying to us.

Host

Professor, now that we are about to handle the Cross-Strait Agreement Supervision Act again, what needs attention?

Li Chia-wen

Actually, social movement groups care more about the fact that the version formulated by the DPP this time is not much different from the previous KMT version; it still grants excessive power to the ruling party. Yesterday (April 18), Professor Chiu Wen-tsong's article in the Liberty Times made it quite clear: what is actually needed are proper procedures and deliberation. Because I haven't researched this specific part, I will speak more conservatively. Perhaps those in power always expect efficiency, but this expectation of efficiency runs counter to the democratic spirit; democracy requires supervision and deliberation.

Host

I remember Lo Ying-sheh once made a remark—I didn't quite understand it either. She said, 'Human rights do not include the right to commit crimes and harm people.'

Li Chia-wen

Before a trial, who gets to decide who a criminal is? After a trial, once inside a prison, everyone should retain the dignity inherent to a human being. First, before an investigation and trial, who can say who a bad person is? Even after a trial, one should retain human dignity. Saying 'bad people have no human rights' is a very dangerous and populist rhetoric. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice is the supervising authority over prosecutors. In our Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors are obligated to pay attention to matters both favorable and unfavorable to the defendant; they are guardians of the law and must take all human rights issues into account.

Host

However, she said stepping down makes her fearless, so now she's just letting loose.

Li Chia-wen

She clearly has the mindset of a 'five-day official awaiting dismissal'—anyway, she's about to step down, so anything goes. Ironically, this is completely contrary to the original story behind the idiom 'five-day official awaiting dismissal' (Wǔ Rì Jīng Zhào). It's a story from the Han dynasty where a certain official was about to be impeached due to involvement in some affairs, and his subordinates thought, 'Since he's about to be impeached anyway, let's ignore him (stop working for him).' But he (the Jingzhao尹 of the Han dynasty) believed that even if he had only five days left, he must fulfill his duties during those five days, and consequently investigated and disciplined that subordinate. Later, the term 'five-day official awaiting dismissal' came to describe Lo Ying-sheh's current mindset (an outgoing, care-nothing attitude). But as long as you are a monk, you ring the bell. Even though you are about to step down, you still need to pay attention to the overall operations and continuity of the Ministry of Justice, as well as judicial assistance. How could the most important thing for the Ministry of Justice right now be winning a verbal sparring match with legislators on stage?

Host

Among these cases involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), what role does the MOJ actually play?

Li Chia-wen

The Ministry of Justice should be an important legal advisory consultant. MOFA and the MAC—the MAC specializes in handling relations with China, while MOFA provides adequate diplomatic protection for Taiwanese nationals abroad. Because this involves criminal cases, and thus judicial assistance, the Department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice is precisely the unit handling this matter.

Host

Legislators keep demanding that the Minister of Justice 'stand firm.' Are they asking too much of her, or were her own remarks the catalyst?

Li Chia-wen

Standing firm, I suppose, should be directed at China. I think the biggest problem is that we accepted China's narrative completely wholesale. Of course, in diplomatic arenas, who wins depends on national power. I know many international law scholars have stepped forward to say that when national power is inferior to others, one must rely on international law. I haven't looked into the details specifically, but from what I've heard, MOFA and the MAC have tried their best. However, the Ministry of Justice—the unit handling the most substantive part—rapidly (Host: allowed itself to be led by the nose), which is quite disappointing.

Host

Professor, now that we are drowning in a war of words, how should similar cases—such as our rampant scams across the world—be handled subsequently?

Li Chia-wen

Let's divide it into temporary measures (palliatives) and fundamental cures. As a temporary measure, if a case has a transnational scale, international mutual assistance is naturally required. Furthermore, because these crimes involve internet and computer technologies, determining the place of jurisdiction is difficult, requiring international agreements to address these problems. On the other hand, if Taiwan's scams were rampant in the past and our regulatory controls were effective, Taiwan's experience could actually be exported.

Host

That's right. They were originally on the southeast coast of China, and now they keep getting squeezed, pushed all the way to Southeast Asia.

Li Chia-wen

Moreover, when handling these types of cases, the most critical point is: imagine if we were running a scam, what identity would we pretend to be? (Host: relatives?) Prosecutors or some officials whose authority you wouldn't dare question. I like observing who scammers impersonate because it actually exposes society's problems. When you receive a phone call and do not question or verify it, it is usually because you are afraid of them or blindly trust them (Host: prosecutors). Doesn't this indicate that society actually has undemocratic problems? To put it crudely, crime syndicates are also testing whether your country's judicial environment is sound—though that's not a very nice way to put it. My point is, solving the problem of fraud does not rely on draconian laws and severe punishments. If draconian punishments are truly desired, heavy sentences are likely not what works; rather, it is the confiscation of illicit proceeds. Because illicit proceeds involve money laundering, cross-border cooperation is actually necessary. Therefore, speaking of palliative measures, heavy prison sentences may not be the answer, because fraud rings involve a huge number of people, including individuals who sell their bank accounts for a few thousand dollars out of poverty. How many years should such a person be sentenced to? (Host: not to mention minors). Under these circumstances, aside from the masterminds, it is hard to expect everyone to receive a 30-year prison sentence. What comes next is essentially the deprivation of ill-gotten gains.

Host

Professor, even if Taiwan hands down a heavy sentence of 30 years, they won't actually serve that long, right? For instance, prisons aren't large enough, or other factors?

Li Chia-wen

(Prisons aren't large enough) because we want to lock everyone up. The fundamental environment of our prisons is terrible. A scholar who previously worked as a prison chaplain told me that anyone who wants to eat free prison meals completely knows nothing about prison conditions. If they knew what prison conditions were like and still wanted to go in, there would likely only be two reasons: first, their mental condition is not quite normal; second, their life on the outside is even more miserable.

Host

What about Cheng Chieh, then? He seemed quite fine.

Li Chia-wen

Cheng Chieh was a different situation. He wanted to commit suicide but didn't dare to, so he committed murders as a way to commit suicide.

Host

Yet his statements afterwards kept changing.

Li Chia-wen

People are inherently not stable or immutable. Our perceptions of a matter might change two days later after encountering different people or events. Victims are the same; Wang Wei-chun, a victim's family member, has had her views change from back then until now. To me, this is no big deal. The real issue is how we treat him (Cheng Chieh) once he transitions from a beast back into a human being. Bringing it back, you ask how fraud cases should be resolved—the fact that victims are left destitute needs to be taken seriously, but arresting perpetrators and imposing draconian punishments will not solve it. Palliative measures certainly involve the confiscation of illicit proceeds, as well as drawing upon Taiwan's past financial regulatory measures which, although imperfect, are worth referencing—including caps on remittance amounts, requirements for dual IDs, etc. (Host: or bank tellers raising their vigilance). There have been many news stories of police officers spotting someone making a remittance and earnestly dissuading them. These Taiwanese experiences can actually be exported. Nowadays, everyone criticizes Taiwan's courts for handing down overly lenient sentences, but if that were true, why are fraud cases in Taiwan decreasing? In reality, it has nothing to do with sentencing severity or how courts rule; it's a regulatory issue. To find a fundamental cure, one must consider that fraud perpetrators going abroad to scam others face an unpredictable foreign judiciary. They might be subjected to torture; regardless of whether it's a minor or major offense, all blame might be shifted onto them; or they might be cheated by local triads. The risks are actually extremely high. When individuals cannot live and work peaceably in Taiwan, and go abroad not for leisure but to take risks, shouldn't we reflect on what is wrong with Taiwan? Why are so many people willing to go to Australia as cheap labor or go abroad to commit fraud? (Host: Why do they want to make easy money? Though actually it's not easy)

Li Chia-wen

It's not easy; it carries enormous burdens. I am not praising them, but criminal events are moments for a country to examine its own society. The problem Taiwan currently faces is that we not only shirk responsibility, but we also echo the Chinese government—and the Chinese government harbors territorial ambitions against Taiwan.

Host

Professor, but if we don't echo them, what about international reality?

Li Chia-wen

In terms of international reality, an international law professor mentioned a few days ago under what circumstances the international community issues condemnations: violations of human rights. Only under such circumstances does the international community issue condemnations. When people say 'exporting fraud leads to international condemnation,' I wonder if this 'international community' refers solely to China?

Host

We've turned international relations into cross-strait relations!

Li Chia-wen

Therefore, fraud is indeed a problem that must be addressed. I am not being naive and claiming that those people (fraud syndicate members) are innocent; rather, dealing with these issues requires a more pragmatic consideration of how to conduct international judicial assistance, which is practically what countries everywhere are handling now. Europe's handling is perhaps slightly more ideal because they have the European Communities, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights, providing a standard to follow. Of course, problems remain numerous—for instance, France and Germany face situations involving Russia and Ukraine, so some matters remain uncontrollable—yet they actively contemplate them. Regardless, when they decide to combat crime (since Europe essentially had no borders prior to the refugee crisis), they still consider sovereignty while combating crime. Only under the premise of respecting sovereignty do they discuss how many concessions to make—that is the correct sequence. Naturally, combating crime may require certain adjustments or concessions, such as willingness to engage in joint criminal investigations with other countries. When you are willing to let another country conduct criminal investigations in your own territory, the expectation is that the other side will likewise allow your investigative organs to conduct joint investigations in theirs, making mutual concessions. This is carried out under the conscious premise of safeguarding one's own sovereignty. Unless clear authorizations have been established, they will not contact agencies directly; it must always go through unified external organs to conduct judicial assistance. However, Taiwan is completely oblivious to this. We directly deal with a national-level unit in Xiamen on the opposite shore using our own local-level units, and the other side has deliberate intentions in doing this.

Host

Professor, sometimes properly leveraging public opinion internationally can also serve as a bargaining chip, right? (Li Chia-wen: Right) But our current public opinion goes against this, saying: 'It doesn't matter, their sentencing is heavier there, go ahead and punish them.'

Li Chia-wen

Actually, right before you called, I was writing this article to explain this situation. In truth, this is extremely dangerous.

Host

Professor, on the other hand, diplomacy is also relatively secretive and low-profile. Lo Ying-sheh seemed to turn around and issue a quasi-threatening warning: 'The more you argue, the longer the other side will drag it out.' (Li Chia-wen: I have never seen a Taiwanese official threaten our own people on behalf of a foreign government.) Anyway, it still comes down to 'stepping down makes you fearless'!

Li Chia-wen

It's not about being fearless upon stepping down; it's that this person completely fails to face what her responsibilities are, prioritizing winning arguments above all else. She can deny what she said earlier or change her statements just to win an argument. It is actually quite tragic. Before the Tu brothers were executed, I had submitted op-eds to the media, and others had as well, pointing out that the Tu brothers' case was problematic. The media reported on it, and Legislator Yu Mei-nu even called Lo Ying-sheh to discuss the matter, but Lo Ying-sheh refused to listen, and the two argued over the phone. This concerned a human life; the signing of our death warrants was entrusted to such a person. I think this is genuinely dangerous. If everyone focuses solely on her, we end up overlooking numerous other problems.

Host

Basically, it's just dragging things out and wearing us down. We exhaust and drag ourselves down first (Li Chia-wen: Who is happy about this status quo? China), sitting back to watch the tigers fight.

Li Chia-wen

Perhaps this is precisely the intentional outcome desired by China—giving you zero evidence while you (Taiwan) tear yourselves apart internally over crime fighting, branding the opposing side as irrational and populist. Since when did Taiwan become like this? In the past, when Taiwan's legal community referenced laws and foreign legal systems, we looked to the United States, Japan, Germany, or the United Kingdom. But the other day I saw on the news that China or countries we consider less legally advanced were being listed simply because their penalties are harsher. I think this is a very dangerous situation. We envy others for being able to impose heavy punishments, but we fail to realize that whether a punishment is heavy or light cannot be determined purely by emotional reactions to a case. In criminal law, the harm caused by each offense requires proportionality; we cannot arbitrarily inflate a single offense. For instance, drunk driving—drunk driving looks despicable to us, but what about night markets trying to make a cheap buck? I know they are small vendors, yet gas tanks and extension cords are placed haphazardly. There was an accident in the Fengchia Night Market before; isn't that dangerous and despicable? In reality, it is also extremely dangerous, and an explosion could easily kill many people. We actually think about the gravity of things in a very intuitive way (Host: if it doesn't make the news, it doesn't seem like news). If we say traffic accidents are despicable, some drivers might suffer from fatigue or lack of sleep, and multi-vehicle pileups can injure twenty or thirty people. Yet we feel drunk driving is the most despicable crime. When the net is cast too wide without considering that some breathalyzers are not as accurate as imagined—the Taichung City Council tested this once, for one thing; secondly, we set the threshold so low that if you only had one drink and were still feeling fine, but because someone else had poor driving habits or your own poor driving habits led to a fender bender, a breathalyzer test brands you as a drunk driver. News reports have also covered cases where someone drank because they couldn't sleep the night before, and driving the next morning—when anyone would assume that waking up the next day is a new day—ended up in a collision, and alcohol was detected. How could he possibly know he still had alcohol in his system? Yet this person is also a drunk driver. Our obsession with fighting crime has reached a crazy degree (Host: at this level, the scope of judicial discretion becomes enormous). Moreover, the stigma of drunk driving is immense. An educator who had devoted a very long time to education attended a banquet, rested on the side for two hours, felt energetic enough to hit the road, and unfortunately got into a traffic accident; his entire reputation was ruined. When we overreact to these matters, do we ever consider that by destroying this person, we might be creating another crime? How are we to face the resentment or hardship experienced by this person's family?

Host

It's a vicious cycle. But being able to see things on such a profound level still depends on education.

Li Chia-wen

That is precisely why I teach courses like criminology at school, or occasionally write articles. However, I believe our intolerance toward crime is actually tied to overall social anxiety. Just imagine, when people's own lives are full of hardship, how can they have empathy for others? It is only when the media hypes something up that people feel the victim is somewhat pitiful and grant a moment of sympathy.

Host

Sometimes this serves as a vent for emotional release.

Li Chia-wen

Actually, our collective anxiety—we cannot blame conglomerates, or blaming conglomerates gets us nowhere—so who do we blame? We blame criminals. This is in truth a venting of anxiety, a venting by the vulnerable. Therefore, I won't simply say 'everyone is blinded by emotion and being irrational'; rather, when the entire system is in decay, criminal justice acts like the ultimate sewer where all the filth is flushed down, and then criminal justice is expected to clean it up. Demanding draconian punishments will only create a vicious cycle.

Host

Another form of irrationality.

Li Chia-wen

Considered as such, draconian punishments will in fact only manufacture more and more problems for society without any chance of stopping. At every single moment, we vent our anger onto a single individual, hoping harsh penalties will resolve these problems. Yet we have given numerous examples: we invent many laws hoping to handle cases like Ting Hsin, but why don't we think about managing food safety properly in the first place? The public is furious that Ting Hsin made money and then speculated on real estate, but why do we permit such a tax and financial system? Thus, this actually reflects that upstream issues were not handled properly, and once flushed down into the sewer, criminal justice is expected to handle all the problems at once. Such an approach can never resolve anything.

Conclusion

 

Li Chia-wen

The Kenya case involves many problems to my mind. People might care about sovereignty issues, whether we are shielding crimes, whether Taiwan is a state of fraudsters, and so forth, but every crime actually exposes many issues. As a temporary measure, we must rely on international judicial assistance; a small state must make good use of international law support, and also adopt a pragmatic approach to diplomacy. Regarding the criminal aspect, we must still guard some basic principles. We cannot continually cave in under intense public pressure and later pay out two or three hundred million NT dollars in compensation to a single person; that is not an economically rational approach either. Human life sounds cheap now—two or three hundred million sounds like a lot—but can't we just give that money to others and live well ourselves?

Host

I still feel that Minister of Justice Lo Ying-sheh's controversial remarks could even be compiled into a meme packet (lazy bag), which is quite rare.

Li Chia-wen

I've noticed media reports, and the China Times and United Daily News likely played a very significant role in this.

Learn More

[Taiwan Law Society] Criminal Judicial Jurisdiction and Mutual Assistance: Insights from the Kenya Case Seminar