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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS