Regarding the recent article by Christopher Walker and Sarah Cook (“Taiwan’s democratic test continues,” Feb. 17, page 8) of New-York based Freedom House, on behalf of the government of the Republic of China, I would like to comment on a number of points raised therein.
The authors state that investigations of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople associated with the DPP raise concerns of “selective justice.” In fact, nearly all probes of more than 10 officials in the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and related persons began during Chen’s second term. It goes without saying that a higher proportion of DPP members have been investigated for corruption over recent years for the simple reason that it is they who occupied virtually all high-level central government posts from 2000 to last year.
Though former president Chen was named as a co-conspirator in November 2006, it was not until he stepped down from the presidency on May 20 last year that investigations on charges of corruption against him resumed, and not until Nov. 12 that he was indicted due to his previous immunity to prosecution.
Moreover, the Special Investigation Panel under the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office that is handling this and related cases was established during former president Chen’s tenure, and he himself appointed the current prosecutor-general who supervises the division.
Ministry of Justice data do not reveal any pattern of selective prosecution of “pan-green” politicians (belonging to the DPP or the Taiwan Solidarity Union) within a multi-year timeframe. Over the nine-year period from 2000 to the end of last year, among the 75 legislators and officials in central and local governments investigated or indicted for corruption or related crimes by prosecutors, 32 — or 43 percent — belonged to the “pan-blue” camp (consisting of the Kuomintang [KMT] and its splinter parties), and 34 — or 47 percent — were pan-green, representing an insignificant difference.
Prosecutors are under the jurisdiction of the executive branch’s Ministry of Justice, but they are mandated to carry out their duties with the same guarantee of independence as judges in the judicial branch. Unlike their US counterparts, prosecutors cannot be ordered by the Minister of Justice to initiate investigative or prosecutorial actions against specific individuals.
Thus, the claim that the current administration has conducted a campaign of selective prosecution against any group is absolutely unjustifiable.
The authors state that “politicized, tabloid-style news media” were used to “discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court.” Whatever the shortcomings of Taiwan’s “fourth estate” may be, its standards of reportage and commentary are issues to be addressed by the industry itself and civil society, and cannot be set or enforced by the government.
In fact, our news media’s lively development over the past two decades is ample demonstration of Taiwan’s freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This is one of the most important reasons why Taiwan has been accorded the top score in the civil liberties category of the Freedom in the World survey for so many years.
As for claims that prosecutors or their staff have leaked information to the media, the current administration views this possibility with great concern, and the Ministry of Justice has been investigating the matter. Although to date no evidence in support of such claims has been discovered, in the event that there is, those suspected of violating the principle of confidentiality will be subject to internal discipline as well as criminal prosecution in strict accordance with the law.
At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the media have innumerable channels for gathering information, including attorneys, defendants and witnesses. Therefore, accusations that the media must be receiving sensitive information through official leaks have no factual basis.
Concerning the reassignment of judges presiding over the trial of former president Chen last November, as I explained in detail in an earlier Taipei Times article (“GIO minister answers open letter,” Feb. 2, page 8), the decision to change panels of judges was made by the Taipei District Court in response to the recommendation of the originally assigned panel of judges and was adopted purely out of consideration for the need to combine the trial of the former president with the earlier-initiated trial of his wife and others so as to avoid multiple trials of the same persons for the same alleged crimes.
This decision was made in accordance with due legal process and is a standard and appropriate practice. Furthermore, the Taiwan High Court considered — and rejected — an appeal by the former president’s legal counsel to annul the Taipei District Court’s decision, thus affirming the appropriateness of the lower court’s management of the case.
With regard to the comic skit performed during a Law Day celebration on Jan. 11, the Ministry of Justice had no advance knowledge of the content of the various skits and other performances in the program, nor is it proper for it to conduct a “pre-show investigation” to ensure political correctness. Further, it should not be imagined that such a trivial skit could influence the judiciary’s thinking.
Nevertheless, as it has evoked public criticism and has marred the public image of prosecutors, the ministry has urged prosecutors to avoid such insensitive behavior in the future.
In their article, Walker and Cook express the hope that this government will enhance its administrative transparency and make public the results of investigations into clashes between the police and civilians during the visit to Taiwan by Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait.
In fact, the National Police Agency’s internal review mechanisms have already resulted in disciplinary action against five police officials whose behavior was deemed to be flawed, as well as a number of reassignments. Contrary to what the authors state in their article, no police officer or official has been promoted in connection with handling the November protests.
The Control Yuan and the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office are also conducting probes into allegations of police misconduct. As for their transparency, it is improper for them to release progress reports during the investigative process, but as soon as they have concluded their inquiries, their findings will be publicized as a matter of routine.
Hence, there should be no doubt as to this government’s commitment to openness and the ability and willingness of our government institutions to conscientiously examine law enforcement measures during Chen Yunlin’s visit.
As to the authors’ recommendation that our government “take an inclusive and open posture” toward the public in the course of conducting cross-strait negotiations, this administration has listened and always will listen with due respect to all voices in our pluralistic, democratic society in the spirit of “putting Taiwan first for the benefit of the people.” We have never wavered on this principle and never will.
Cross-strait negotiations are being conducted in an open manner by the two sides’ formally designated consultative organizations. Information on the times, places and policy directions of negotiations have been reported to the Legislative Yuan and the media in advance. And the contents of signed agreements have been published for public scrutiny and referred to the Legislative Yuan for review.
We shall persevere in exchanging views with political and civic leaders throughout society in the hope that, through our common efforts, combined wisdom and mutual trust and understanding, we can set a new foundation for the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
Further, this government is committed to pushing forward with progressive democratic evolution and strengthening the protection of human rights, as illustrated by the following developments:
Acting on the Executive Yuan’s recommendation, the Legislative Yuan on Jan. 6 repealed the Anti-Hoodlum Act, many provisions in which have long been criticized as unconstitutional.
The Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan have reached a consensus not only to amend the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) to require demonstrators to simply give the authorities advance notification of their activities rather than requiring them to apply for permission, but also to remove provisions regarding criminal penalties.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice are forcefully urging the Legislative Yuan to ratify the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which our nation signed in 1967.
On behalf of the government of the Republic of China, I would like to express our gratitude for Freedom House’s longstanding concern for freedom and human rights in Taiwan. We hope that in the course of its future evaluations of freedom and human rights in Taiwan, Freedom House will be able to consult with an even broader sampling of people, including those in judicial and investigative institutions. We also hope our friends in the international community can get a more accurate picture of our society, and we look forward to working with them to advance our shared, universal values.
Su Jun-pin is minister of the Government Information Office.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS