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
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Thursday last week met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at an APEC summit in Thailand. The meeting made front-page news in Japan the following day. Three years ago, when then-Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe visited Beijing to meet with Xi, no one questioned Abe’s attitude toward China, as the conservative parties in Japan had been spearheaded by Abe. However, Kishida could easily be labeled as pro-China, as he hails from Hiroshima — a place known for its anti-war, anti-nuclear movements — and was once the director of the Japan-China Friendship Association of Hiroshima.
It is quite the irony when former British prime minister Boris Johnson — a buffoon who for far too long was taken seriously — is branded a buffoon for saying something deadly serious. Following Johnson’s withering criticism of China at a business forum in Singapore on Wednesday last week, the event’s organizer, Michael Bloomberg, apologized to attendees, saying that Johnson was “trying to be amusing rather than informative and serious.” However, Johnson’s characterization of China as a “coercive autocracy” that had showed “a candid disregard for the rule of international law” was spot-on. His comments evoked the wisdom of the Austrian-British philosopher
Although internal Chinese politics are largely defined by meticulously concocted mysteries, it is an open secret that the battle for who will ascend to the highest echelons of Zhongnanhai is decided at the Beidaihe resort. It is where factions within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) engage in horse-trading over leadership selection and delegate appointments long before the party’s national congress. What unfolded at last month’s 20th National Congress was predetermined at the Beidaihe gathering in August. In this context, the CCP, and particularly Chinese President and CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平), used the event to project power and party unity.
As campaign fever for tomorrow’s local elections turns white hot, supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have been going head to head on social media. The latest row was triggered by a Facebook post on Nov. 13 by songwriter and KMT supporter Liu Chia-chang (劉家昌), who rebuked United Microelectronics Corp founder Robert Tsao (曹興誠) for advocating independence. “Although you regained your ROC [Republic of China] citizenship after returning from Singapore, you continue to help the green independents by guarding their flank,” Liu wrote, adding that it was an “insult to the nation.” “When [KMT