The impeachment of State Public Prosecutor-General Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明), which triggered a mass resignation of 14 of his prosecutorial appointees, was first and foremost a political act.
Chen resigned shortly after the Control Yuan’s decision was handed down on Tuesday. Nominated by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Chen Tsung-ming is the first top prosecutor to suffer this fate.
From the outset, Chen Tsung-ming admittedly set an inappropriate example by attending gatherings with then-minister of justice Morley Shih (施茂林) that were organized by the scandal-bound former president’s friend, Huang Fang-yen (黃芳彥), at Huang’s residence almost three years ago.
Because of his conflict of interest as top prosecutor in charge of the Special Investigation Panel’s investigation into Chen Shui-bian, as well as his political affiliations with the former president, Chen Tsung-ming should have avoided such gatherings given that his colleagues suspected Huang may have played a key role in the events under review.
During legislative question-and-answer sessions, Chen Tsung-ming also fudged about his attendance at other contentious gatherings with property tycoons and the press, thus arousing suspicions among several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that case details had been leaked, strings pulled or something otherwise improper took place.
But did anything improper take place?
If it did, Chen Tsung-ming should have been investigated and prosecuted instead of just being allowed to resign.
It was hoped that the Control Yuan could clarify these issues — and offer evidence of criminal activity.
Sadly, its report leaves the public none the wiser. It appears that Chen Tsung-ming has been impeached not for breaking the law, but for sloppy handling of his extensive connections, and possibly just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“As the Control Yuan is neither a criminal investigation institution, nor does it have any judicial enforcement powers,” it can only point out the “facts” and refer them to prosecutors, said Control Yuan member Lee Ful-dien (李復甸), who initiated the motion.
As with the previous failed attempt, however, this week’s vote of 8-3 to impeach was based on little more than speculation.
A sample of Lee’s deductive skills: “What did they talk about at Huang’s house? We suspect there were criminal acts at play in the meeting.”
And this: “There must be something behind the meeting that prompted Chen Tsung-ming to lie about the fact he dined with ... a construction magnate.”
This is simply extraordinary reasoning for a body charged with investigating the behavior — and passing judgment on the reputation — of top civil servants.
Yet again, the incompetence of political appointees has impugned the reputation of the wider judicial system, entrenching the public’s perception that it is entirely possible for the innocent to be wronged, and vice versa, at the behest of pressure from legislators.
Chen Tsung-ming was no shining example of how a law enforcement officer should behave, but his impeachment was more about the interests of forces outside the Control Yuan, and not the actionable merits of the case.
The final irony is that his loyal team of investigators succeeded in jailing the person who employed him. That obviously wasn’t enough for the powers that be.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS