EDITORIAL: Ma hijacks Lady Justice

In many countries, Lady Justice, a blindfolded goddess brandishing a set of scales in one hand and a sword in the other, symbolizes the impartiality of justice that grants fair trials and metes out due punishment to wrongdoers. But in Taiwan, Lady Justice appears to have her eyes wide open on the accused, with others pressing the sword against her neck.

State Prosecutor-General Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明) recently came under fire over media reports that he had ordered prosecutors to refrain from summoning Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for questioning before the election in March. Chen had rebutted the reports. Whether or not he did give such an order, the fact remains that although Ma was found not guilty of corruption by the Taiwan High Court on Dec. 28, prosecutors can still file an appeal. Ma is also under investigation in eight other cases. Calling a halt to the investigation until the presidential election because of the special status of the defendant does not tally with the principles of fairness and justice.

Prosecutors are legally responsible for presenting cases against suspects on behalf of the state. However, on Thursday, Ma filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors involved in his special allowance fund trials, accusing them of abuse of authority. It could not be more ironic that the prosecutors have become defendants in the course of their duty, and the plaintiff is their former supervisor as justice minister.

In Taiwan's judicial system, prosecutors are duty bound to indict suspects, whereas judges are responsible for determining whether an accusation stands. If the judge does not agree with the prosecutor's accusations or evidence, a verdict of "not guilty" is rendered. If prosecutors are found to have used improper means to acquire evidence, the judge can declare a mistrial. The Ministry of Justice has administrative punishment mechanisms that deal with prosecutors suspected of misconduct through the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries (公務人員懲戒委員會), while the Control Yuan can investigate or impeach officials.

Ma should be very familiar with the judicial system, but he chose a most unusual response by filing a lawsuit against his prosecutors. If every defendant followed suit and sued their prosecutors, it would be a terrible legal disaster. No wonder the prosecutors feel that Ma is making an example of them in order to discourage an appeal or further investigations into the eight pending cases.

Ma is a doctor of law and former minister of justice: He should have a full understanding of the operations and regulations of the legal system and is partly responsible for its present form. If Ma believes that the prosecutors were too Draconian, the defendant's and the prosecution's resources and status were inequitable, or that there was room for improvement, he can push for judicial reform if he is elected president -- rather than press the sword against Lady Justice's neck and force legality to heel.

Ma is perhaps unused to being a defendant, as this is his first time. In comparison, Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), former premier Yu Shyi-kun (游錫 ) and former Presidential Office secretary-general Mark Chen (陳唐山) -- previous political prisoners who are now in court for allegedly misusing their special allowance funds -- have demonstrated their respect for justice by refraining from responding with radical or retaliatory measures. While Ma boasts to the media of his good manners, sophistication and integrity, his conduct bears false witness to this image.