Having bade farewell to the Prosecutors Evaluation Committee, I feel as if a weight has been lifted from my shoulders, but I also feel a sense of foreboding.
I have worked in the media both professionally and as an academic for 20 years, and firmly believe that Mencius was right when he said: “‘Those who give counsel to the great should view them with contempt, and disregard their pomp and circumstance.” I have always kept “the great” at arm’s length. However, two years ago, I know not why, I was “summoned” to sit on the first term of the committee, a fixed-term, unpaid position offering little but stress and long hours.
My understanding was that the job entailed helping to root out the more nefarious elements stowed within the judiciary, and for this reason I happily agreed. I was also the only member of the committee not versed in law. Given my relative lack of knowledge in all things legal, I spent those two years like a curious child, transfixed by the emperor proudly parading in front of my eyes, before I could no longer keep myself from blurting out: “The emperor has no clothes!”
Over the past two years, my duties have brought me into contact with how the Investigation Bureau operates, the minutiae of prosecutors’ interrogation methods and the process by which the Ministry of Justice’s Special Investigation Division (SID) handles cases, something the general public will probably never fully understand.
Flicking through one indictment upon another, I became increasingly perplexed. Could it be that the benefit of an education in law is that you can write legal documents in such a way that people find them utterly indecipherable? Even the most erudite, upon receiving such a document, might as well have been delivered a sheet of braille.
Having watched countless recordings of interrogations, I was amazed at how some people were able to withstand the kind of questioning methods they were subjected to without being browbeaten into a confession.
I gasped at the way the SID went about putting a case together, cobbling together evidence, coming to doubtful assertions and acting so self-righteously. When they were pursuing a case, the evidence-gathering skills of this meticulously selected band of legal high-flyers reminded me of those of a paparazzi rabble hounding a target.
Having seen the SID’s impressively comprehensive, all-inclusive wiretapping transcripts, a word to the wise: It is not just judges who have to be mindful of what they say — we all do, for someone is listening in.
Having witnessed the wiretapping methods used by prosecutors and the Investigation Bureau in their joint “war on crime,” I have become convinced that this way of obtaining information is as grave.
We will all experience the effects of it one day. If you ever have the fortune to participate in one of these evaluation committees and get to converse with members of these “legal high-flyers,” you will be quite shocked how people who spout these reams of drivel can be elevated to such heights, these “greats” of whom Mencius spoke.
If you understand the scope of the special powers accorded to the SID, then you will know when the division combines with powerful political players, how easy it is to make political adversaries go the way of the hapless Jang Song-thaek, the recently erased uncle of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
My impression after two years of sitting on the committee is this: With the lack of transparency in how the judiciary operates coupled with the corrupt edifice of politics in this country, unless the two are not carefully controlled, Taiwan could very quickly return to the White Terror era.
Having left the committee, it is my firm belief that the war has yet to be won, and the journey is not yet done.
As I say farewell to the Ministry of Justice, I feel deeply anxious for my fellow Taiwanese. Unless something changes, I might just see you in the streets.
Peng Wen-cheng is a professor at the National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of Journalism and a former member and spokesman for the Prosecutors Evaluation Committee.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis. Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections. The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered
Early last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) was elected party chairman, winning with a seven-to-three majority over pro-Beijing former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), a two-time KMT vice chairman. Chiang’s victory has been interpreted as a generational change and the beginning of major party reform. In his inauguration speech on March 9, Chiang did not mention the so-called “1992 consensus.” Analysts believe that his most urgent task is to attract more young people to the party and win voter trust, and that he does not care about Beijing’s reaction. After joining the party chairmanship by-election, Chiang made his