Friends have asked me why Control Yuan members fear nothing, when the worst thing that could happen to a civil servant is to be reported to the Control Yuan for dereliction of duty and having contravened the law. One friend even asked how to deal with Control Yuan members and their complete disregard for the law.
I served as convener of the Control Yuan’s disciplinary committee for two years. There are disciplinary rules for members, and in 2013 I oversaw a review and amendment of these rules in the disciplinary committee. Regrettably, Control Yuan members have forgotten these rules — their only concern is to hold others to account while forgetting to take a close look at themselves and their own shortcomings.
The Control Yuan’s impeachment of prosecutor Chen Lung-hsiang (陳隆翔) on May 14 created a backlash among low-level judicial officers, and five Control Yuan members — Fang Wan-fu (方萬富), Chiang Ming-tsang (江明蒼), Chang Kuei-mei (仉桂美), Bau Tzong-ho (包宗和) and Tsai Pei-tsun (蔡培村) — thought the impeachment was problematic and voted against it.
The five submitted a legal rationale for their opposition, saying “that “special attention should be given to the complaint written by the impeached, prosecutor Chen, and submitted to Control Yuan President Chang [Po-ya], in which he mentions that the Control Yuan members that initiated the impeachment procedure repeatedly displayed an erroneous legal understanding in their questioning and ridiculed the accused and so on.”
This section of the complaint is very serious. Article 16 of the disciplinary rules states that Control Yuan members investigating a matter must adopt an appropriate attitude and pay close attention to protecting the dignity of the target of the investigation.
Matters concerning the reputation of Control Yuan members must not be left unattended. They should be forwarded to the disciplinary committee, which should request copies of the recording of the questioning to clarify things.
In the past, a Taipei district prosecutor, who had an attitude problem, repeatedly threatened, abused and discriminated against defendants and plaintiffs, and at times completely lost control. The prosecutor was later impeached by Control Yuan members Hung Chao-nan (洪昭男) and Huang Wu-tzu (黃武次), who also warned judicial staff that they should not taint the image of human rights and the judiciary.
Looking at these accusations, it would be reasonable to ask if Control Yuan members are hurting human rights and investigations by probing such cases, but if they want to be upstanding civil servants and protect human rights, they should take the lead in clearing up the situation.
Media reports said that after Chen was impeached, Control Yuan member Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) was very pleased and said in a detailed post on the Pointed Pigtail (尖尾週記) blog that the first impeachment vote was rejected 10-2, but that the second passed by 6-5.
He wrote that the votes were a perfect description of the “blue-green ecology” at the Control Yuan and that it was, in effect, a “color revolution” because they were voting based on party affiliation.
“I have no choice but to investigate pan-blue instead of pan-green individuals,” he wrote. “Over the next year and a half, there will be many more cases that are ‘clearly color coded.’”
These statements sparked debate about whether Chen Shih-meng breached the second article of the disciplinary rules, which states: “Control Yuan members shall conduct their duties in accordance with the law, and they should transcend party politics and remain neutral.”
The third article of the rules states: “Control Yuan members should maintain high moral standards; act and speak cautiously; remain honest; exercise self control; and avoid inappropriate or questionable actions that could hurt the Control Yuan.”
The previous disciplinary committee passed Control Yuan member Chao Chang-ping’s (趙昌平) investigation of then-Control Yuan president Wang Chien-shien (王建煊), which said that Wang spent 15 minutes acting as a witness at a wedding of a couple of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople during a visit by an executive master of business administration class from a well-known Chinese university to the Control Yuan.
While Wang did not contravene the Public Functionary Service Act (公務員服務法), it was inappropriate for him to act as a witness at a wedding during office hours, as it was not related to his position, which is a grand, lofty and very public position that requires caution in both speech and action to maintain the institution’s dignity and reputation.
Control Yuan members are not above the law and must not contravene disciplinary rules or engage in any activity that might contravene the law or be deemed a dereliction of duty. If they do, they can be investigated by the disciplinary committee and reported to the full Control Yuan, where they can be told to pay attention, warned, required to apologize to the Control Yuan, impeached or transferred to a court of law if their actions involve criminal liability.
It is time that members of the disciplinary committee wake up, lest the public forget that the institution even exists.
Cheng Jen-hung is a former Control Yuan member, honorary chairman of the Consumers’ Foundation and a professor at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS