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
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS