The legislature last week confirmed the new Control Yuan nominees, one of whom, Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟), during the nomination process pledged to “launch probes against those in the judiciary who selectively take up prosecution against pan-green camp politicians and government officials.”
Whether Chen has already demonstrated that he is unable to carry out his role as a member of the Control Yuan in a sufficiently objective and neutral manner will depend on the decisions and actions he takes in the coming months and years. He will certainly be scrutinized very closely.
As for Chen’s view that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) should have been acquitted of corruption charges, it is certainly true that this requires fresh examination.
When corruption allegations against Chen Shui-bian surfaced in 2008, officers from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID) went to great lengths to gather material against the former president, including sending prosecutors to Japan to piece together the balances of his overseas bank accounts.
While in Japan, prosecutors persuaded Chinatrust founder and former chairman Jeffrey Koo Jr (辜仲諒), who had fled to Japan after being found guilty of involvement in the so-called Red Fire case, to return to Taiwan to testify against Chen Shui-bian in exchange for a promise that they would not apply for an arrest warrant upon his return.
Prosecutors skillfully seduced Koo, who returned to Taiwan and admitted handling Red Fire deal bribe money for the family of Chen Shui-bian.
The evidence given by Koo was instrumental in convicting Chen Shui-bian in the Longtan Township (龍潭) land procurement money-laundering case.
Who would have thought that after Koo was handed a long prison sentence by the Taipei District Court for his involvement in the Red Fire case, he would in 2011 spill the beans about how he had returned to Taiwan to give evidence at the SID’s bidding?
Many in Taiwan were astonished that the nation’s highest investigatory and prosecutory body would resort to such tactics to secure a conviction.
Further, as per the Longtan case and whether it is possible to establish that Chen Shui-bian bribed civil servants, the crux of the issue is whether what took place was within the bounds of the office of the president.
Since July 1, 2006, criminal law in Taiwan has been governed by the principle that only people who are engaged in public affairs and who possess limited statutory powers can be legally defined as public officials.
Therefore, whether Chen Shui-bian’s actions can be defined as official public business hinges upon whether he possessed the statutory authority to do so.
The statutory authority of the president is defined by the Constitution and as the Constitution stands, the delineation of powers between the president and the premier is a matter of dispute.
Despite seven successive revisions to the Constitution, the precise powers that the president holds is still unclear.
In the Longtan case, the High Court was only able to establish an approximation of the president’s powers.
Whether land procurement in connection with the Hsinchu Science Park or taking bribes to facilitate a high-profile financial merger, or other related executive orders or measures, these generally all involve the invocation of executive powers.
These cases were also closely bound up with the acceptance of political donations and High Court judges established that favors were granted in return for cash bribes.
The judges ruled that Chen Shui-bian used the “power of influence” which he possessed as president to accept bribes and kickbacks.
High Court judges have not yet used the substantial power of influence, which the former president tailored to his advantage during his term in office, as a test case for other corruption cases.
For instance, in 2013 former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) was sentenced to seven years in prison by the Taipei District Court for accepting about NT$60 million (US$2.04 million at the current exchange rate) from a contractor.
Judges found that Lin had abused the executive powers bestowed by his office and had abused the substantial power of influence afforded by his position.
Furthermore, last year the High Court announced that it planned to use the “substantial power of influence” as a “standardized interpretation,” but in the end the plan came to nothing.
This demonstrates that the problem with Taiwan’s judiciary perhaps lies not with prosecutors or judges with alleged political leanings toward the pan-green or pan-blue camps, but instead with the willful and arbitrary decisionmaking of the judiciary.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Edward Jones
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