Were it not for the Control Yuan, the massive judicial scandal involving allegations of corruption by former Supreme Court judge Shih Mu-chin (石木欽) and Chia Her Industrial president Weng Mao-chung (翁茂鍾) would have remained buried deep in multiple “black boxes.”
However, there is another important aspect to the story that is worthy of attention.
If Control Yuan members appointed by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) are not cleared out, even if the agency initiates impeachment proceedings against the more than 200 judicial personnel and civil servants accused of having been involved in illicit activities, nothing will happen.
After the Judicial Yuan handed material related to Shih’s activities to the Control Yuan, an impeachment procedure against Shih was opened. At the Control Yuan’s impeachment review committee’s first hearing, members voted seven to four against impeaching Shih. The second hearing lacked a quorum, and after the third hearing failed to impeach him, the issue was left unresolved.
Control Yuan member Fang Wan-fu (方萬富), a Ma appointee implicated in the case, mobilized Ma supporters in the Control Yuan to block Shih’s impeachment.
Fortunately, the Ma clique in the Control Yuan was broken up when a new class of members joined, and on Aug. 14 last year, the committee voted in favor of Shih’s impeachment by 12 votes to none.
Talking to reporters, Shih fired back, asking: “If I was involved in any impropriety, why was I not impeached during the first impeachment hearing?”
He clearly understands the agency’s inner workings.
On Sept. 9 last year, the Control Yuan issued a report stating that prosecutors had more than 130 files, but that it had only seen a dozen or so.
The report said that the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office had confiscated 27 of Weng’s notebooks, but only the parts involving judges had been handed over: Everything involving prosecutors had been kept under wraps.
As a result, the Control Yuan demanded that the Executive Yuan and Judicial Yuan punish implicated officials within two months, or the Control Yuan would take action itself.
This bold move forced the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice to announce the results of its investigation on Jan. 18.
The investigation found that Weng had had “improper contact” with 20 judges, 11 prosecutors, and nine Investigation Bureau officials.
Can it really be that only 40 individuals were involved? Even Saber Youth — a judicial independence advocacy group composed of young prosecutors — called on the Judicial Yuan to make public a list of all officials implicated in the case.
The Weng-Shih case involves alleged improper conduct which, according to the Control Yuan, occurred more than a decade — and in some instances more than two decades — ago.
However, Fang was a Control Yuan member up until July 30 last year, so his case is still easy to investigate.
The scandal concerns the entire judicial system and implicates powerful people at the highest level, from grand justices down to judges in the Supreme Court, High Administrative Court, Disciplinary Court, and administrative and district courts.
The allegations implicate retired grand justices, a former Judicial Yuan vice president and division chief judges. Prosecutors from chief prosecutors down are also involved.
Judicial Reform Foundation chairman Lin Yung-sung (林永頌) asked Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌): “Why are there no investigation reports from the National Police Agency, which falls under your purview?”
There are no reports from the police agency or the Investigation Bureau, and the judiciary and prosecutors are clearly in cahoots with each other; if it is not corruption, the only explanation is gross incompetence.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) rejected the introduction of a jury system in favor of a lay judge system that would include so-called “citizen judges” in lieu of genuine judicial reform. Shih’s actions show that the “citizen judge” system is unworkable.
Former Judicial Yuan president Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) received a letter informing on Shih when he was newly installed as Taiwan High Court president. Shih was summoned by Rai for formal questioning.
Shih strongly denied any illegal activity, saying that he had never provided advice to Weng, and persuaded Rai.
If even an experienced lawyer such as Rai was duped by Shih, one can assume that a citizen judge could also be duped.
The judiciary has for many years functioned as a closed interest group, with the Control Yuan as gatekeeper. How many more Weng cases are out there? How many more Shihs and Fangs are operating within the system? How many more crooked grand justices are yet to be exposed?
Weng was not a particularly skilled operator — the problem lies with Taiwan’s rotten judicial system. “Independent trial” and “discretionary evidence” are used as shields by bad actors and impede the Control Yuan from properly supervising and investigating members of the judiciary.
Tsai’s judicial reform, announced with so much fanfare five years ago, is left in tatters.
Can she continue to stay out of the matter for much longer?
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Edward Jones
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
RSS