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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US