On Monday, eight prosecutors in charge of the investigation into former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) secret overseas accounts held a press conference in Taipei.
During the press conference, prosecutor Yueh Fang-ju (越方如) proclaimed that if they failed to solve the case, they would step down.
Yueh asked rhetorically: “If the case cannot be solved, how could we not be too ashamed to stay?”
Supreme Prosecutor Office’s Special Investigation Panel (SIP) spokesman Chen Yun-nan (陳雲南) echoed Yueh’s comments, saying that if the team failed to solve the case, then they would have to step down, too.
The problem with this is that prosecutors are civil officials, not political appointees.
They should handle cases in accordance with the law and make remarks and decisions based on the evidence associated with the case at hand — nothing more and nothing less.
The language used by the SIP prosecutors at the press conference makes it sound as if they were pan-blue politicians commencing a campaign of attack on Chen Shui-bian.
In addition, the SIP ignored Articles 2 and 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法).
Article 2 stipulates that “a public official who conducts proceedings on a criminal case shall give equal attention to circumstances favorable or unfavorable to an accused,” while Article 154 stipulates that “prior to final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent.”
After President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration took office, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) made public remarks regarding the details of the case on a political talkshow as if she were a civil servant rather than an elected official.
Now the prosecutors in the ministry’s own probe into the case have made a public statement directly dealing with an ongoing investigation that they are participating in, using politically tainted language to say that they will step down if they cannot find evidence to prove the accused has committed the crimes that he is accused of.
Is that right and proper? Whatever happened to the independence of the judiciary? How can this state of affairs reflect well on the judiciary’s credibility?
The prosecutors on the SIP are coming across like political guns hired by the president in proclaiming that their careers will be staked on their ability to secure Chen Shui-bian’s conviction.
Because of this, it will be very difficult to guarantee that these people are not, in fact, thinking of advancing their careers as public officials and that they are prepared to abuse their powers to get the desired result.
It is also difficult to believe that these prosecutors can be neutral in this case.
If Chen Shui-bian were convicted, it is hard to see how the public would believe that it was on the basis of guilt rather than as a means for these prosecutors to further their personal interests.
With this fateful SIP press conference, the prosecuting panel’s neutrality went up in smoke.
To ensure public confidence in the judiciary, the eight prosecutors involved should resign from their posts immediately and withdraw completely from the investigation into Chen Shui-bian.
If they don’t do this, the Ministry of Justice should take the initiative and have them replaced.
Chen San-er is a lawyer and a former chairman of Amnesty International Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS