Since taking office, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has exercised the power to pardon three times. The legal community mostly praised her first pardon in the case of Tama Talum, a Bunun hunter also known as Wang Kuang-lu (王光祿), saying that it was a response to the current legal system, in particular Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 803, which said that the then-Council of Grand Justices lacked understanding to enhance the protection of indigenous people.
However, the community was highly critical of the second and the third pardons, which were of retired army general Han Yu-ping (韓豫平) and army sergeant Chang Yu-sen (張淯森). Tsai made a mistake that seriously undermines the judiciary with these two.
Unfortunately, some Taiwanese seem to have missed the point. For instance, Brandt Tso (卜蘭德), a retired National Defense University Management College professor, said that the wisdom and resolve Tsai showed in pardoning the two men to address discontent within Taiwan’s military is exactly the kind of action that the country expects its president to take. (“Tsai raises morale with pardon of two officials,” April 29, page 8).
In a sense, Tso more or less reflected public opinion, sharing people’s failure to look into the fact-finding process and recognize the crux of the matter.
The facts in the (108) Jun-Shang-Su-Zi No. 2 case rendered by the Hualien High Court indicate that Han took advantage of the “Extra Funds Designed for the Issuance of Credit for Military Drill Units” issued by the Ministry of National Defense.
Using funds meant for the entertainment expenses of troops, he invited a “subordinate’s family members” — who were not military personnel — to a meal at a seafood restaurant in Hualien.
Han asked the restaurant to issue a receipt dated in August, rather than July, which was the month the meal was eaten.
The ministry’s rules stipulate that such funds are not to be used for civilian expenditure.
However, Han instructed his subordinates to sign off on it and make up a list of those at the meal on official documents. In so doing, accounting personnel were misled into believing that the meal was attended by military officers. They reimbursed the cost of the meal in the false belief that it was in compliance with the regulations.
Han also instructed subordinates to fabricate a “Roster of Dining Personnel of Eastern Hualien Army Command on Aug. 20, 2015,” before filing the documents.
In the process, several subordinates questioned the legality of Han’s behavior. In particular, at least three officers expressed their objections to Han, yet he insisted on getting his way.
Some of the subordinates who cooperated with the illegal reimbursement have received deferred prosecution for forgery of public documents.
As prosecutor Hung Chia-yeh (洪佳業) said, Han was full of lies during the investigation and the trial. When something went wrong, he blamed the subordinates who objected, but had no choice but to follow Han’s instructions.
In addition to the fabricated document, Han also asked his subordinates to collude with accomplices and witnesses.
Hung said that Han took advantage of the false receipts and meal lists, and asked his subordinates to make false reports.
After he was exposed, he blamed his subordinates, who were merely following his orders, Hung said.
To successfully unmask Han, prosecutors went to great lengths to persuade the courts to give the defendants a heavy sentence.
Hung posed this question to Tsai: “Why do you think that fabricating fake accounts, fake rosters and fake receipts is ‘merely administrative negligence’?”
The general’s behavior was vicious. Why does the president think that constituted “minor circumstances with a heavy legal punishment?” he asked.
Article 5 of the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例) says that the charges Han faced were punishable by imprisonment of no less than seven years, which was made so strict because legislators believed that people strongly resent corruption among civil servants. Thus they stipulated that corruption involving even NT$1 should also be punished severely. In the Han case, NT$2,880 should not be an exception.
While Han is not the only person to have been sentenced according to these rules — many others have been convicted and sentenced to prison — he is different because his rank gave him a chance to gain the president’s attention.
It seems that instead of “raising the morale of the country’s armed forces and their families,” Tsai pardoning the two military officers sets a bad precedent, seemingly demonstrating that high-ranking military officers can disregard the law.
What is more concerning is that Tsai has made a huge mistake, and undermined the rule of law and the morale of the nation’s judiciary.
Huang Yu-zhe is a student at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies.
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
In A phone call between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Xi is reported to have stated that in his view, “Taiwan’s return to China” is to be considered an integral part of the post-World War II international order. Never mind that China under Xi has been trying to undermine the liberal post-war international order by setting up alternative organizations and schemes that are detrimental to freedom and democracy around the world. Its own repression of Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong are vivid examples. The “return to China” is the biggest misnomer: Taiwan has never ever been part
When the towers of Wang Fuk Court turned into a seven-building inferno on Wednesday last week, killing 128 people, including a firefighter, Hong Kong officials promised investigations, pledged to review regulations and within hours issued a plan to replace bamboo scaffolding with steel. It sounded decisive. It was not. The gestures are about political optics, not accountability. The tragedy was not caused by bamboo or by outdated laws. Flame-retardant netting is already required. Under Hong Kong’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme — which requires buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspection every decade and compulsory repairs — the framework for
President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced a plan to invest an additional NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) in military spending to procure advanced defense systems over the next eight years, and outlined two major plans and concrete steps to defend democratic Taiwan in the face of China’s intensifying threat. While Lai’s plans for boosting the country’s national security have been praised by many US lawmakers, former defense officials, academics and the American Institute in Taiwan, the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, they were not equally welcomed by all Taiwanese, particularly among the opposition parties. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman
RSS