Liang Ssu-hui (梁思惠), a model and girlfriend of Cheng Yu (程宇), a suspect in a recent high-profile murder case of another model, surnamed Chen (陳), was detained without visitation rights by the police on March 3.
However, after it emerged that Liang had not been at the scene of the crime, she was released.
The ensuing frenzied backpedaling by Taiwanese media and social media users — who had quickly passed judgement on Liang and left hate-filled messages on her Facebook page — was shameful to witness.
It seems that in Taiwan, the legal principle that investigation details are confidential exists only on paper.
All too often, during the initial stages of an investigation, while police were gathering material and establishing suspects’ whereabouts, details of the investigation are made public.
Not only does this run the risk of potential evidence being destroyed or covered up, but it might also put suspects on guard, making it more difficult for prosecutors to uncover the truth during questioning.
If, when the facts of a case are still unclear, details of an investigation are made public, this could encroach upon the privacy — and damage the reputation — of victims, witnesses and other parties caught up in the investigation.
It is all too easy for pretrial publicity to result in a “trial-by-media.”
The principle of maintaining confidentiality during investigations is by no means absolute.
In cases where a suspect is on the run, when deciding whether to release information to the media, law enforcement authorities take into consideration the potential danger a suspect poses to the public and whether the public can provide useful assistance.
Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) prohibits prosecutors, police, defense attorneys or any other public officials connected with an investigation from publicly disclosing any information related to the case, except when it is permitted under the law, is in the public interest, or is required in order to uphold the law.
The Judicial Yuan also has specific measures to ensure that investigators abide by the law and to ensure human rights are protected.
However, there is a vast difference between what the law states and what actually happens.
This is because if police or prosecutors leak information, although they could be prosecuted for having disclosed state secrets, in the majority of cases prosecutors and police are unwilling to turn against one of their own, meaning successful legal action is rare.
Even if a source is identified, the excuse that the leak was either in the public interest or to ensure public safety is used.
Furthermore, even if such justifications for disclosing information did not exist, this type of offense normally only receives a jail term of less than three years, and trials often end in a deferred prosecution, a suspended sentence or the sentence being commuted to a fine.
In most cases, investigators who have been charged with disclosing information receive only a token punishment.
This latest instance of an ongoing investigation being splashed across the media and the Internet should be thoroughly investigated and the source of the leak uncovered, even if there is not much hope of a successful prosecution.
It is imperative that the law is amended to close loopholes; otherwise, the principle of confidential investigations is nothing more than aspirational.
Wu Ching-chin is chair of the law department at Aletheia University.
Translated by Edward Jones
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS