During the Kaohsiung MRT corruption trial at the Kaohsiung High Court, Tsai Kuo-jen (蔡國禎) of the Kaohsiung High Prosecutors’ Office made the surprising claim that in order to quell public criticism, State Prosecutor-General Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明), then head prosecutor-general at the Kaohsiung Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office, had given orders to find scapegoats for indictment to appease public opinion. Tsai said that this information had come to him through a prosecutor at the District Prosecutors’ Office.
Article 64 of the Law of Court Organization (法院組織法) stipulates that high-ranking prosecution officials have the right to intervene in individual cases. Therefore, if Chen really exercised his right to intervene, there is no need for him to deny the fact. So long as his conduct was legal, it does not constitute inappropriate interference. However, Chen’s hurried denials and the ensuing public outcry have highlighted a great need for reform of the prosecutorial system.
First, Article 64 is unclear. How superior prosecution officials are to exercise their right to intervene in, or to transfer cases and thus inherit associated responsibility, is not clearly explained. Consequently, certain prosecutors can enjoy authority while shirking their responsibilities. They frequently give verbal instructions on how subordinate prosecutors should conduct investigations, only to let these subordinates take the blame when things go wrong, which constitutes interference. The opposite situation also occurs, where high-ranking prosecution officials, in order to gain favor with subordinates, never exercise their authority as stipulated in Article 64, thus allowing lower-level prosecutors to operate largely unsupervised.
Both scenarios are major problems in the operations of the prosecutorial system.
Second, the nature of public prosecutors needs to be redefined. Public opinion in response to this case is similar to the common misunderstanding of the difference between judges and prosecutors: The mistaken belief that prosecutors should investigate “independently” without “intervention” or “interference” from superiors, so that any intervention is interpreted as the “non-independence” of the judiciary.
But prosecutors are not judges and there is no issue of them having to judge independently without interference. And yet, the majority of people cannot differentiate between these two roles and often think of prosecutors as judges. They also misconstrue the meaning of independent trial and apply it to prosecutors’ investigations.
This not only overlooks the fact that the ill-defined nature of the prosecutorial mechanism is the real problem — which has led to delays in reform — but it also results in low public confidence in the efficacy of the judiciary. The reconfiguration of a fair judicial system is therefore predicated on the total separation of the judiciary and the prosecution, a process that should begin immediately.
Third, the prosecution of cases involving attempts to make profit illegally in accordance with the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption (貪污治罪條例) has consistently had a low rate of conviction. Yet even in the early stages of indictment, these cases already cause irreparable loss of reputation for the accused.
Even if years later the court finds the accused innocent, the situation is often beyond remedy. The repeated occurrence of such judicial blunders raises the question of whether we might not have been too lenient in holding prosecutors accountable.
The above cannot be adequately addressed by simply creating a “prosecutors act.” Rather, a specific law is needed.
Kao Yung-cheng is executive-general of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS