Print

Mail

wiki links

Police caught in professional binds

Following Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing’s (張銘清) fall to the ground in Tainan during a scuffle last month, the National Police Agency deployed a massive number of police during ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) subsequent visit.

The police used every possible method to separate protesters from Chen wherever he went. However, the Democratic Progressive Party said this was an abuse of power. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) reminded the police to pay attention to the feelings of the public and not to violate the principle of proportionality when enforcing the law.

Our police did a lot of hard work during this round of cross-strait talks. However, they were in a very awkward situation — caught between the government and the public. This shows just how hard it can be for Taiwan’s police to perform their duties.

In Taiwan’s unique policing system, officers are answerable to the district prosecutors’ offices and local government heads. Our police therefore find themselves in a bind when the district prosecutors’ offices and local government heads clash.

Police also frequently take responsibility for any conflict that occurs as a result of these clashes. All they can do in such situations is forget their own pain while playing the roles expected of them.

County and city police chiefs face the difficulty of deciding whether they should follow the orders of the central or local governments. When issues that disrupt public order occur, they are not sure if they should listen to the district prosecutors’ offices or local government heads.

Public order is the responsibility of local police units. However, although local police departments are under the supervision of local governments, the right to appoint local police chiefs lies with the central government.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), the police must follow orders from the district prosecutors’ offices on matters of investigation. However, when maintaining public order, police follow the orders of local government heads with policing responsibilities. As a result, when a major crime occurs, it is difficult to clarify the responsibilities of the central and local governments. The police easily become scapegoats, and local police chiefs often resign to take responsibility when problems occur.

According to the Local Government Systems Act (地方制度法), local governments control police administration budgets, which are reviewed and monitored by county and city councils. However, the Act also says that police personnel matters are outside local autonomy laws, with local police chiefs under the authority of the central government — in accordance with the Police Law (警察法) and the Law Governing Police Personnel Affairs (警察人員人事條例) — and appointed by the National Police Agency, an organ of the Ministry of the Interior.

In this system, personnel and budget affairs are separate. As a result, our police are constantly caught up in a struggle between the central and local governments, and officers at the local level suffer the most.

For example, in Ministry of Justice crackdowns on vote-buying, the National Police Agency requires that local police investigate matters related to vote-buying. But because of lengthy trials, elected representatives on vote-buying charges have the power and the means to intimidate police if the court fails to hand down a guilty verdict by the end of the legislative term.

Elected representatives around the nation differ greatly in terms of their level of professionalism, and many voters only care about the “services” these representatives can provide them. The representatives are not subject to monitoring mechanisms of any sort and have the power to review police budgets while using “speech immunity” to trample on public authority.

Under such pressure, all the police can do for a lot of the time is compromise.

When Zhang was mobbed in Tainan, the leader of the mob — a Tainan City councilor with the power to review police budgets and a budding mayoral candidate, intimidated plain-clothes policemen surrounding Zhang. Reports of the incident in the media have helped to severely erode police authority. The reports even reached the international media, which shamed Taiwan.

“Too much is as bad as too little,” the saying goes. Law enforcement by Taiwanese police has been criticized for some time because of excessive political interference. With elected representatives of all political persuasions fighting the police when they attempt to enforce the law, public authority is vanishing.

Taiwan’s democracy is a miracle and can serve as an example for the rest of the Chinese-speaking world. If our politicians can restrain themselves and act according to the law, our police would be able to perform their duties in accordance with the law in a much more professional manner.



Sandy Yeh is a board director of the Police Research Association.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
This story has been viewed 1134 times.