On April 16, police officer Yang Chung-li (楊忠蒞), a physical skills instructor with the Taipei Songshan (松山) Precinct, said he had been out for dinner and drinks with friends when he got into a street quarrel with a group of young people, who chased Yang when he ran into the precinct’s Zhonglun (中崙) Police Station, and they ended up smashing a computer. Why did the duty officers not confront the alleged attackers? Media coverage of the incident was a farce, in which all concerned made a show of apologizing to each other.
A physical skills instructor is assigned to each police division and precinct. Any police officer, regardless of rank, can become an instructor by taking an accredited physical skills training course and passing the selection test. The instructors train police officers for eight hours per month on grappling, shooting, arrest techniques and physical fitness.
The training content can be heavy or light, the methods complicated or simple and the length of the sessions is flexible. Police officers need good evaluations from the instructors and their official stamps to continue taking police exams and receiving promotions.
Several years ago, more than 100 sergeants who applied to attend a course at the Central Police University had “failed regular training” stamped on their applications by an instructor, so 37 of them could not register for the exam.
Instructors hold greater power and influence than their humble station suggests. Every day of a police officer’s life is full of uncertainties. They might suddenly need to take on different duties or pursue suspects, which often clashes with their training time. The outcome depends on the attitude of their instructor.
This has long been common knowledge. In countless misconduct cases, those involved have been let off the hook thanks to the social skills and connections of instructors who spoke up for them.
In the incident involving Yang, could the police officers on duty afford to offend him? Would they dare report the incident? The staff at the police station do not deserve to be punished.
Consider former National Police Agency (NPA) director-general Yen Shih-si’s (顏世錫) instruction to “handle complicated matters according to the law.” He had served as confidential secretary to Chou Chung-feng (周中峰), who transferred from the military to serve as head of the Taiwan Provincial Police Administration, since integrated into the NPA.
When Chou took over a financial crime case that several of his predecessors had failed to solve, many people at a case conference reported to him about the standing, rank and departments of the people implicated, but Chou said: “There is no need to talk about interpersonal relations. All I am asking is who broke which laws, and which laws apply to prosecuting this case.” This attitude allowed the case to be closed.
Polite apologies at the police station were not what the general public wanted. What people expect is for the young people dressed in black who allegedly besieged the police station to be taken to court. The public wants to know what the police are going to do about the equipment getting smashed and whether the instructor broke the law by getting into a verbal altercation.
Taiwanese should learn from Chou and Yen’s principle of handling complicated matters according to the law. Even if the two sides have reconciled so that those involved cannot be delivered to the prosecutors’ office in person, the case should still be handed over to the prosecutors’ office in writing.
Teddy Su is a civil servant and author.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS