The impeachment of State Public Prosecutor-General Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明), which triggered a mass resignation of 14 of his prosecutorial appointees, was first and foremost a political act.
Chen resigned shortly after the Control Yuan’s decision was handed down on Tuesday. Nominated by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Chen Tsung-ming is the first top prosecutor to suffer this fate.
From the outset, Chen Tsung-ming admittedly set an inappropriate example by attending gatherings with then-minister of justice Morley Shih (施茂林) that were organized by the scandal-bound former president’s friend, Huang Fang-yen (黃芳彥), at Huang’s residence almost three years ago.
Because of his conflict of interest as top prosecutor in charge of the Special Investigation Panel’s investigation into Chen Shui-bian, as well as his political affiliations with the former president, Chen Tsung-ming should have avoided such gatherings given that his colleagues suspected Huang may have played a key role in the events under review.
During legislative question-and-answer sessions, Chen Tsung-ming also fudged about his attendance at other contentious gatherings with property tycoons and the press, thus arousing suspicions among several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that case details had been leaked, strings pulled or something otherwise improper took place.
But did anything improper take place?
If it did, Chen Tsung-ming should have been investigated and prosecuted instead of just being allowed to resign.
It was hoped that the Control Yuan could clarify these issues — and offer evidence of criminal activity.
Sadly, its report leaves the public none the wiser. It appears that Chen Tsung-ming has been impeached not for breaking the law, but for sloppy handling of his extensive connections, and possibly just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“As the Control Yuan is neither a criminal investigation institution, nor does it have any judicial enforcement powers,” it can only point out the “facts” and refer them to prosecutors, said Control Yuan member Lee Ful-dien (李復甸), who initiated the motion.
As with the previous failed attempt, however, this week’s vote of 8-3 to impeach was based on little more than speculation.
A sample of Lee’s deductive skills: “What did they talk about at Huang’s house? We suspect there were criminal acts at play in the meeting.”
And this: “There must be something behind the meeting that prompted Chen Tsung-ming to lie about the fact he dined with ... a construction magnate.”
This is simply extraordinary reasoning for a body charged with investigating the behavior — and passing judgment on the reputation — of top civil servants.
Yet again, the incompetence of political appointees has impugned the reputation of the wider judicial system, entrenching the public’s perception that it is entirely possible for the innocent to be wronged, and vice versa, at the behest of pressure from legislators.
Chen Tsung-ming was no shining example of how a law enforcement officer should behave, but his impeachment was more about the interests of forces outside the Control Yuan, and not the actionable merits of the case.
The final irony is that his loyal team of investigators succeeded in jailing the person who employed him. That obviously wasn’t enough for the powers that be.
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