The following case, which I experienced as an interpreter, illustrates that many issues in Taiwan’s legal system originate from law enforcement personnel. The problem stems not so much from their education and training, but their personal attitude — characterized by excessive self-confidence paired with a lack of accountability.
One day at 10:30am, I was called to a police station in New Taipei City for an emergency. I arrived an hour later. A man was tied to a chair, having been arrested at the airport due to an outstanding arrest warrant.
It quickly became apparent that the case was related to a traffic incident 18 months earlier, in which the other party had sustained only minor scratches.
The man said he had reached a settlement, under which the other party was supposed to withdraw the criminal complaint.
The helpful police officers made phone calls, while the man’s girlfriend contacted the insurance company and the other party. Everyone was cooperative — well, almost everyone.
It emerged that the prosecution had failed to remove the already revoked arrest warrant from their system, and the man still had to be taken to the prosecutors’ office in New Taipei City for further formalities. The prosecutor in Kaohsiung, who had apparently made an error, said he would call back at 2pm — but seemingly prioritized a nap and lunch instead.
However, at the prosecutors’ office, the atmosphere changed, and the officials became harsher. The detainee was placed in a cell for dangerous criminals, and forced to remove his shoes and belt. Requests to waive this degrading procedure were denied, with officials citing vague regulations.
Despite everything being ready, the process dragged on until 4pm, and the detainee was subjected to the humiliating procedure of fingerprinting. The police officer handed him a printed document with the latest decision and advised him to carry it at all times — just in case he got arrested again.
Three weeks later, I received a payment of about NT$1,100 for 1.5 hours of travel and about 5 hours of interpreting. The prosecutor had decided that my assistance had not been truly necessary and therefore could only be partially compensated.
The issuance of a warrant for what was allegedly a minor case of bodily harm already suggests discrimination against a foreigner. Even more concerning, the prosecution displayed no awareness of any wrongdoing in unlawfully detaining someone.
Even as it became increasingly evident that the man was being held without justification, the prosecutor remained indifferent. To him, it was a trivial issue — despite the fact that legally, it constituted unlawful detention. A prosecutor prioritizing lunch over someone’s freedom would face criminal charges elsewhere.
Beyond the emotional and legal damage caused, the prosecutor’s negligence also incurred immense administrative costs. Several staff members from the police and prosecutors’ offices in New Taipei and Kaohsiung were engaged in the proceedings for hours.
The entire process reflects an emotional immaturity on the part of the prosecutor, who demonstrated neither the professionalism nor the personal competence required for their role.
The only real concern for the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office seemed to be ensuring that the interpreter would not be compensated for all of his time.
The fee for an interpreter is already very low, just NT$500 per hour (excluding travel expenses). However, the attempt to withhold even that token payment was simply disgraceful.
An interpreter with legal expertise is essential. Chinese and German are difficult to translate, and some legal terms have no direct equivalents. A detainee under stress often gives unclear answers, making it necessary for the interpreter to ask follow-up questions and provide clarification. It is challenging to offer support while remaining neutral.
Translation agencies complain they cannot find people for court and police interpreting. I cannot imagine why.
Claudius Petzold is a counsel at Washington Group and Associates.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
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
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS