The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office has indicted former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on charges of leaking secret information and inciting others to leak secret information. Still, prior to a news conference announcing the decision, no one knew anything about the status of the investigation, not to mention any detailed information.
Before a release announcing the news conference was issued, the media did not know whether Ma was going to be indicted. It is clear that the investigation was conducted fully in line with Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), which states that “an investigation shall not be public.”
This is praiseworthy, but the same standard should be applied to all cases if the government is to rebuild public trust in prosecutors and their ability to remain neutral.
People remember the 2012 Yu Chang Biologics (宇昌) case, which involved the National Development Fund falsifying documents and initiating a smear campaign against then-presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), and how certain media published reports, including materials from the Special Investigation Division’s (SID) probe into the allegations. Although the SID concluded that Tsai was innocent, officials seemed to ignore the legal requirement that an investigation shall not be public.
When prosecutors were investigating officials from the previous administration after the transition of power in 2008, there similarly was no attempt to follow the rule that an investigation shall not be public.
For example, almost every stage of the investigation into the actions of former National Security Council secretary-general Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) was reported, and even humiliating photographs of Chiu with his head shaved following his detention found their way into the hands of the media.
Although the court concluded that Chiu was innocent, the media had already helped prosecutors humiliate Chiu.
Another example is the way in which details of an investigation into the Ministry of National Defense and almost every statement by former minister of national defense Michael Tsai (蔡明憲) found its way into the media during an investigation into bribery in connection with the promotion of officers.
Once again, nothing illegal was found to have occurred, but the authority of Tsai and other high officers had been irreparably damaged.
The investigation resulting in Ma’s indictment followed the regulation that investigations should not be made public. This is a legal principle that should be applied to everyone.
There should be no difference, regardless of whether you belong to the pan-blue camp or the pan-green camp, nor should it have anything to do with your social status — the Mama Mouth Cafe murders and the murder of a 22-year-old model, surnamed Chen (陳), spring to mind.
No ongoing investigation should be made public — this is not a rule that can be selectively applied.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS