The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID) has changed its approach in the course of investigating corruption charges against former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世).
In the beginning, it seemed as though SID prosecutors were trying to keep the case low-key, but then suddenly acted with lightning speed in summoning Lin, conducting searches and applying to the courts for an arrest warrant. Observers have interpreted these actions in various ways.
Psychologist and philosopher Paul Watzlawick once said that people are always communicating.
Even when people are silent and unresponsive or try hard not to communicate, they are still communicating in some way. It is just that the signals they send out may be interpreted in different ways by different people.
The average person does not know the full details of Lin’s case. Things like search warrants, confiscation, summons and detention are matters for the courts to decide and not for anyone else to worry about.
However, the controversies that the case has raised with regard to the legal system are definitely worth reflecting on.
One such controversy has to do with the SID’s apparent passivity and inaction when it initially failed to summon or interrogate Lin, and another is the SID spokesman’s initiative in interpreting Lin’s “voluntary surrender” to the authorities.
Article 228, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: “In the course of an investigation, a procurator shall not first summon or interrogate the accused unless it is necessary.” In principle, it is a good thing that prosecutors put the legislative intent behind this article into practice. The clause was written into the law for a reason, namely to correct prosecutors’ practice of placing excessive emphasis on statements or confessions made by those accused.
Another reason is to prevent investigations causing people unnecessary trouble. Anyone subjected to any trivial accusation would have to worry about being called for a visit to the prosecutors’ office.
A more serious possible outcome the law sought to prevent is investigations becoming a hotbed for the use of torture to extract confessions that are not backed up by firm material evidence. Under such circumstances, pieced-together accounts could easily lead to wrongful convictions.
However, the clause in question is an “advisory provision,” so it has no real effect if prosecutors do not follow it and not much importance has ever been given to it.
In Lin’s case, when he expressed his willingness to come forward and explain the details of the case, the SID surprisingly cited this almost forgotten article as a reason for turning down his offer.
As Taiwan’s top investigative body, the SID deserves praise for taking the lead in putting this clause into practice.
The SID’s determined effort to avoid “communicating” with the suspect is a signal that the prosecution system has started to give more weight to material evidence rather than confessions. That is how it should be, and hopefully that is how it is.
Let us now turn to the comments made by SID spokesman Chen Hung-ta (陳宏達), who questioned how Lin’s actions could be called a “voluntary surrender.” Some observers have quoted past verdicts and decisions by the Supreme Court and textbooks on the Code of Criminal Procedure and accused the prosecutor of having misinterpreted the law.
Even if these criticisms are correct, public prosecutors are undeniably allowed to disagree with the opinions of the courts and to express their views on the law.
Nevertheless, the job of prosecutors is to investigate and indict.
The question of whether an individual can be defined as having voluntarily surrendered to the authorities is an issue for the courts to deliberate and decide upon when the case goes to trial.
On the other hand, the SID is vested with the power to summon and detain the suspect, and even witnesses, based on the circumstances of each individual case, and this has nothing to do with whether a person meets the conditions for voluntary surrender.
Put simply, the question of whether a person surrendered voluntarily is an issue related to sentencing, and it is also a prerogative of the courts.
It has absolutely no influence on prosecutors’ investigation and handling of a case or their decision as to whether they will indict someone.
If prosecutors indulge in excessive “communication,” it is likely to set imaginations running wild, and people may ask whether they made the comments on purpose or just blurted them out by accident.
When the SID is investigating major cases that involve high-ranking officials and the rich and powerful, it is bound to attract a lot of attention.
Never mind the manner in which investigations are conducted; even if prosecutors are a little careless about the statements they make, they can end up harming themselves almost as much as others. In such cases, wisdom is just as essential as knowledge of the law.
Given that the SID has so much initiative and such great powers in its mission to eradicate corruption, the courts need to play a more passive role of monitoring the SID and keeping it in check on behalf of the judiciary.
What gives the SID such great power is not the high-ranking officials who appoint it, but all the citizens of this country.
Ordinary people are the ones with whom the SID should communicate transparently during an investigation, and it is also the public who will ultimately decide whether the SID is competent at its job.
Kao Jung-chih is a lawyer and director of the office of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers