According to recent reports, a trash collection worker in Taipei with more than 30 years of service picked up a discarded rice cooker from a recycling truck and gave it to an elderly woman who scavenges for a living. Although the rice cooker would fetch just NT$32 (US$1.06) at a recycling plant, the Shilin District Prosecutors’ Office indicted the worker, surnamed Huang (黃), according to Article 6 of the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例) for “misappropriating private property or equipment that is in his or her possession due to official position, but not for official use,” as trash collection workers are city employees.
The penalty is no less than five years of imprisonment, with a possible additional fine of up to NT$30 million. If convicted, he would also be dismissed from his post and permanently barred from holding public office.
In principle, corruption committed by public servants should be classified as malfeasance under Part 2, Chapter 4 of the Criminal Code.
However — because corrupt officials ran rampant during the late Qing Dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China (ROC) — starting from when Chinese provisional president Yuan Shikai (袁世凱) promulgated regulations on the punishment of corrupt officials, laws were passed to address the issue. In 1920, Yuan’s Beiyang government in Beijing passed provisional statutes for the punishment of crimes related to relief efforts, while in 1938, the ROC government passed a provisional statute for the punishment of corruption — which was amended in 1943 and renamed the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption. In 1953, the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption during the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion was promulgated until it was amended and renamed in 1992 to the present-day Anti-Corruption Act. These measures dramatically increased the statutory penalties for crimes already covered under the Criminal Code, effectively rendering its provisions obsolete.
In this case, the moment the discarded rice cooker was lifted onto the recycling truck, it was deemed by the Environmental Protection Bureau to have become public property. By privately handing it to the elderly woman, Huang is considered to have misappropriated property “due to official position, but not for official use,” thereby contravening the act. On the surface, this appears procedurally sound, but as some have pointed out, waste that is not properly disposed of might actually end up having a negative value due to the fees associated with recycling and disposal. From this perspective, Huang’s actions reflected the spirit of recycling and deserve praise.
I am familiar with a similar case in which the defendant distributed surplus meals from a student cafeteria to his colleagues. Like Huang, prosecutors indicted the defendant under Article 6 of the act for “misappropriating” the food.
However, the defendant was acquitted in 2007 by the Northern District Military Court of the Ministry of National Defense. Judgement No. 53 said that the defendant’s distribution of leftover meals from the student cafeteria to colleagues on campus who were not part of the meal program was not enough to establish an intent to misappropriate the cafeteria’s surplus food, so his actions did not constitute a contravention of Article 6.
It said that the defendant’s decision to share the food with his colleagues stemmed from a genuine desire to avoid waste, and to act with gratitude and appreciation. It was done in good faith and in accordance with prevailing social norms.
The judgement said that resources are limited and if people would cherish all things through frugality, it would not only sustain the planet’s resources, but also purify hearts.
The defendant — with permission from his superiors and the students participating in the meal program — distributed the leftover food to his fellow colleagues on campus to avoid waste, it said.
It was a well-intentioned act rooted in kindness — a virtuous deed that deserved recognition, it added.
However, that ruling was handed down prior to 2013 under the old military court system. The three presiding military judges did not adhere rigidly to “conceptual jurisprudence” — a formalistic approach that focuses narrowly on abstract legal concepts, often at the expense of practical justice — but instead provided a thorough interpretation of the law’s meaning. It is commendable that they treated the defendant fairly and with justice without resorting to complex German criminal law theories.
Judges in ordinary courts should also demonstrate open-mindedness and empathy, rendering judgements in corruption cases with a balance of logical reasoning and compassion before the act can be amended to align with public sentiment.
More importantly, legislators should reflect on the fact that the act has endured its own “century of solitude.” Originally promulgated to severely punish corrupt officials in the initial years following the ROC’s establishment, it should be asked whether — given the tremendous changes the nation has undergone in the past century — is still truly appropriate for today’s Taiwan.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS