|
Ma lied about judge’s
nomination: DPP
HE SAID, SHE SAID: While Ma said that he had no
idea of Shao Yen-ling’s role in a controversial child abuse case, Shao said she
made that clear after being nominated
By Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporter
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was lying when he sought to distance himself from a
disputed nomination for the Council of Grand Justices last week, Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) legislators said yesterday.
In a statement on Wednesday, Supreme Court Judge Shao Yen-ling (邵燕玲), who made a
controversial ruling as presiding judge last year in a sexual assault case
involving a minor, said she had disclosed her role in the ruling soon after
learning of her nomination for the council.
In a statement posted on an internal judges’ discussion board, Shao said she had
informed the nomination committee of the case and told them to consider another
“more suitable” candidate.
“Immediately after being nominated, I personally made it clear that I handled
the sexual assault case in question. I sincerely told them to consider another
nominee,” Shao wrote.
However, Ma told a press conference on Friday last week that Shao had failed to
make clear her role in the ruling, in which she overturned a High Court ruling
on the grounds that a three year-old rape victim had not resisted strongly
enough against the assault, citing precedent.
The ruling said the defendant should be tried on a lesser charge of statutory
rape rather than sexual assault, a decision that prompted tens of thousands of
protesters to take to the streets.
Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), who led the task force to name candidates for
the four Grand Justice positions opening in the fall, was also at the press
conference.
Ma picked the final four nominees, including Shao, from a shortlist of nine.
“[I] had no idea that Shao was the presiding judge of the sexual assault case.
If she had said made it clear at the time, I wouldn’t have nominated her,” Ma
told reporters.
Lawmakers have said the controversy threatens to undermine the nomination
process and have accused the nomination task force of failing to thoroughly
screen the candidates.
Shao was quick to refuse the nomination and was replaced by Dennis Tang (湯德宗), a
constitutional law expert at National Taiwan University.
Lawmakers yesterday said the discrepancies in Ma’s account had led many to
believe that he had lied to protect himself and that Shao’s statement cast doubt
on his explanations.
“He owes the public an apology,” DPP Legislator Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃) said. “Ma
lied to Taiwanese when he claimed he’d only learned of Shao’s role from
newspapers.”
However, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus said Ma had already
apologized for the controversy and it sought to downplay Shao’s statement.
Presidential Office Spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) said it was unnecessary for
Ma to apologize again because he had already apologized for being “careless”
during the nomination process.
Lo said Ma and Siew were unaware of Shao’s role in the controversial verdict
until the news broke on March 31.
Lo said that while Judicial Yuan President Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) knew about Shao’s
role, the screening task force, of which Rai was a member, never discussed the
matter.
Shao’s case is not the only issue to have cast doubt on the nomination process
for the grand justices.
Another nominee, Chen Be-yue (陳碧玉), the head of the Judicial Yuan’s Judicial
Personnel Study Center, was forced to deny yesterday that she had also held US
citizenship, which would make her ineligible for the position.
Chen said she had given up her status in the US in September 2009, well before
she was considered for the grand justice role.
The four nominees are to be confirmed in the current legislative session so they
can be sworn in on Oct. 1.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY KO SHU-LING AND STAFF WRITER
|
